Skip to main content

Full text of "The witness of the Vulgate, Peshitta and Septuagint to the text of Zephaniah"

See other formats 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

RECEIVED    BY    EXCHANGE 


Class 


CONTRIBUTIONS  TO  ORIENTAL  HISTORY  AND  PHILOLOGY 

No.  IV 


THE  WITNESS 

OF    THE 

VULGATE,  PESHITTA  AND  SEPTUAGINT 

TO    THE 

TEXT  OF  ZEPHANIAH 


BY 


SIDNEY  ZANDSTRA 


SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE  DEGREE 

OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY,  IN  THE  FACULTY  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


NEW   YORK 
1909 


THE  WITNESS 

OF    THE 

VULGATE,  PESHITTA  AND  SEPTUAGINT 

TO    THE 

TEXT  OF  ZEPHANIAH 


CONTRIBUTIONS  TO  ORIENTAL  HISTORY  AND  PHILOLOGY 

No.  IV 


THE  WITNESS 

OF    THE 

YULGATE,  PESHITTA  AND  SEPTUAGINT 

TO    THE 

TEXT  OF  ZEPHANIAH 


BY 

SIDNEY  ZANDSTRA 


SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE  DEGREE 

OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY,  IN  THE  FACULTY  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


NEW  YORK 
1909 


Copyright,  1909 

BY  THE  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PEESS 
Printed  from  type.       Published  May,  1909 


THE  TUTTLE,    MOREHOU6E   A   TAYLOR   COMPANY. 


NOTE. 

No  complete  examination  of  the  relation  of  the  chief  Versions 
of  the  Old  Testament  to  the  original  Hebrew  has  been  made  with 
especial  reference  to  the  Book  of  Zephaniah.  Dr.  Zandstra  has 
in  the  following  Essay  supplied  this  want  with  much  care  and 
discretion. 

RICHARD  GOTTHEIL. 
May  20th,  1909. 


205723 


CONTENTS. 

Chapter 

Introduction, 

I.     The  Vulgate, 

II.     The  Peshitta, 

III.  The  Septuagint,     - 

IV.  The  Interdependence  of  the.  Versions, 


-  1-6 

-  6-17 

-  18-24 

-  24-35 

-  35-38 


V.     Departures  from  Massoretic  Tradition  and  Variants 

from  Consonantal  Text,  -     38-45 

VI.     Conclusion,     -  -     45-47 

Appendix    I.     Difficulties  in  the  Hebrew  Text,  -     47—49 

Appendix  II.     Conjectural   and   Higher   Criticism   of  the 

Text,    -  49-52 


INTRODUCTION. 

§  I.  It  is  proposed  in  the  following  pages  to  study  the  text  of 
Zephaniah  in  the  light  of  the  ancient  primary  versions.  This 
study  was  undertaken  largely  to  become  familiar  with  Old  Testa- 
ment Criticism— a  field  of  which  it  is  peculiarly  true  that  orien- 
tation is  possible  only  at  first  hand.  The  choice  of  so  short  a 
text  is  vindicated  by  the  almost  unanimous  verdict  of  scholars 
that  the  work  of  the  translators  of  these  versions  is  very  uneven 
in  quality.  It  is  in  fact  still  a  moot  question  whether  the  Minor 
Prophets  were  translated  into  Greek  by  one  individual  or  by 
many  ;  and  the  arguments  that  have  been  advanced1  to  show  that 
the  Peshitta  is  not  really  a  deliberate  translation,  but  rather  the 
final  stereotyped  form  that  traditional  renderings  of  various 
origins  assumed,  have  never  been  satisfactorily  met.  The  reasons 
for  the  choice  of  this  particular  text  are  two.  (a.)  Though  the 
Hebrew  of  Zephaniah  presents  many  difficulties,  no  complete 
study  of  its  text  corresponding  to  such  work  as  has  been  done  on 
Micah  by  Ryssel2  seems  ever  to  have  been  made,  (b.)  In  critical 
commentaries  it  always  occupies  a  subordinate  place  among  the 
Minor  Prophets,  and  in  textual  studies  it  is  entirely  overshadowed 
by  the  more  important  books  of  the  division  of  the  Canon  to 
which  it  belongs.3  This  neglect,  whatever  its  explanation  may 
be,  makes  Zephaniah  a  good  choice  for  a  textual  study.  As  it 
would  be  fatal  presumption  for  one  to  ignore  the  work  of  prede- 
cessors, whether  it  bore  directly  or  indirectly  on  one's  theme,  it 


1  Perles,  Meletemata  Peschittoniana,  1859,  p.  48. 

a  Ryssel,  Untersuchungen  uber  die  Textgestalt  und  die  Echtheit  des  Buches  Micha, 
1887. 

aSchwally's  Das  Such  Zephanja,  Z.A.T.W.  (1885),  pp.  183  ff.,  is  the  only  separate 
commentary  outside  of  the  well-known  English  and  German  critical  series  accessible  to 
the  general  student.  Bachmann  has  written  specifically  about  the  text  of  Zephaniah  in 
an  article  entitled  Zur  Textkritik  des  Propheten  Zephanja,  S.K.  (1894) ;  his  article  is, 
however,  but  a  statement  of  conclusions,  and  it  is  characterized  by  a  most  reckless  spirit 
of  conjecture.  Here  and  there  a  brief  note  on  some  proposed  emendation  is  to  be 
found  ;  cf.  Z.A.T.W.  (1885),  pp.  183  ff.  and  Z.A.T.W.  (1891),  pp.  185  f.,  260  ff. 


2  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

goes  almost  without  saying  that  all  available  sources  of  informa- 
tion have  been  carefully  examined  and  freely  laid  under  tribute. 
That  which  is  presented,  while  based  on  original  investigation, 
has  thus  also  of  necessity  the  virtue  of  being  a  more  or  less  com 
plete  digest  of  the  work  of  others.1 

§  II.  Because  Old  Testament  Criticism  is  still  for  many  reasons 
a  wilderness  through  which  each  one  must  in  large  part  blaze  his 
own  trail,  it  seems  necessary  to  preface  the  statement  of  the 
method  chosen  in  this  examination  by  some  more  general  remarks 
that  shall  not  only  explain  it,  but  also  justify  its  use. 

(A.)  The  thesis  that  all  extant  Hebrew  sources  for  the  text  of 
the  Old  Testament,  both  in  manuscript  and  in  print,  go  back  to 
a  first  century  archetype,  was  first  advanced  by  Lagarde  in  1863. 
The  chief  supports  of  this  thesis  are  the  remarkable  uniformity 
that  is  found  in  the  manuscripts  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  sup- 
posedly large  number  of  corruptions  in  the  text  on  the  other. 
These  two  phenomena  are  mutually  exclusive  in  an  ancient  docu- 
ment that  has  been  accurately  transmitted  from  its  autograph, 
and  their  conjunction  in  this  case  is  said  to  demand  a  comparatively 
late  date  for  the  common  source  to  which  all  manuscripts  and 
printed  editions  converge.  The  date  of  this  hypothetical  archetype 
is  fixed  in  the  first  century  by  certain  external  characteristics 
that  the  text  presents  and  by  known  facts  in  Jewish  History.3 
Strack,  who  about  thirty  years  ago  could  pass  over  this  view  in 
silence,3  states  in  his  article  on  the  Text  of  the  Old  Testament  in 


1  A  bibliography  has  not  been  prepared  because  complete  lists  of  the  literature  that 
must  be  consulted  abound.    Berger  (Histoire  de  la   Vulgate  pendant  les  premiers 
siecles  du  moyen  dge),  Swete  (The  Old  Testament  in  Greek)  and  Nestle  (Urtext  und 
Ubersetzungen  der  Bibel,  reprinted  in  the  Real-Encyclop'adie  fur  protest.  Theologie 
und  Kirche)  are  practically  exhaustive  as  far  as  the  general  literature  is  concerned. 
To  the  commentaries  mentioned  in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  (article  Zephaniah) 
those  of  Marti  and  Driver  must  be  added ;  in    the  miscellaneous   literature  Ehrlich 
(Mikrd  Ki-Pheschut6,  III,  pp.  456-463)  may  well  be  included.     This  last  work  is  written 
in  Hebrew,  but  a  German  translation  of  the  passages  discussed  is  given. 

2  In  a  few  characteristic  paragraphs  (Symmicta,  II,  pp.  120, 121),  intended  primarily 
to  show  that  this  thesis  was  entirely  original  with  himself,  Lagarde  incidentally  gives  a 
brief  account  of  how  it  had  been  received  by  scholars  up  to  1880.    It  appears  that  Ols- 
hausen  had  independently  reached  a  very  similar  view  through  a  different  process  of 
reasoning.    Cf,  further  Swete,  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  in  Greek,  pp.  313-320  ; 
W.  R.  Smith,  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  p.  56 ;  Driver,  Notes  on  the  Hebrew 
Text  of  Samuel,  pp.  xxxix  ff. 

8  Lagarde,  Symmicta,  II,  p.  120. 


Introduction.  3 

Hastings1  Dictionary  of  the  jBible  that  it  is  accepted  by  most 
moderns.  He  himself  does  not  accept  it,  but  holds  that  the  cus- 
tom of  consigning  manuscripts  that  had  been  damaged  by  the 
tooth  of  time,  by  fire,  or  by  water,  or  that  were  found  to  contain 
more  than  a  certain  number  of  mistakes,  to  the  so-called  genizah, 
which  was  generally  a  room  in  the  cellar  of  a  synagogue,  is  suffi- 
cient to  explain  all  the1  phenomena.  This  thesis,  whether  true  or 
not,  offers  striking  proof  that  the  present  Hebrew  text  gives  but 
scant  aid  in  tracing  its  own  history  beyond  a  certain  point,  or  in 
fixing  its  earliest  form.  Moreover,  there  are  but  few  manuscripts, 
of  which  none  are  very  old,  and  textual  types — the  chief  material 
for  the  criticism  of  texts — are  thus  not  to  be  found.1  But  it  is  a 
cardinal  principle  of  criticism  that  to  recover  the  true  text  of  an 
ancient  document  it  is  first  necessary  to  know  its  history  ;  and 
that  manuscripts,  although  the  text  which  they  contain  is  undated 
and  unlocalized,  generally  furnish  the  primary  data  for  reconstruct- 
ing this  history  with  the  help  of  versions,  which  serve  in  a  sec- 
ondary capacity  to  fix  the  time  and  place  of  origin  of  the  differ- 
ent textual  types  that  the  manuscripts  present.  In  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, however,  there  are  no  types  of  text  in  regard  to  which 
versions  can  be  made  to  indicate  a  choice,  but  they  themselves 
become  the  principal  data.  Instead  of  being  called  on  to  show 
from  which  particular  type  of  two  or  more  existing  types  it  was 
made,  a  version  must  surrender  the  text  on  which  it  was  based, 
in  order  that  it  may  then  be  decided  whether  that  text  agrees 
with  or  differs  from  the  single  Hebrew  textual  type.  Because  a 
version  must  thus  itself  yield  the  text  from  which  it  was  made, 
Old  Testament  Criticism  is  complicated  by  all  the  variable  factors 
necessarily  connected  with  translation  and  translators. 

(B.)  Languages  are  for  the  most  part  so  different  in  genius  that 
translation  from  one  into  another  is  often  impossible  without  theft 


1  Ginsburg's  new  '  Edition  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  according  to  the  Massoretic  Text  of 
Jacob  Ben  Chayim  '  (British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  August,  1908)  contains  the  results 
of  a  collation  of  71  manuscripts  and  19  early  printed  editions.  The  editor  has  presuma- 
bly used  everything  that  seemed  worth  using  in  this  latest  edition  and  yet  there  are  at 
most  but  27  manuscripts  and  9  early  printed  editions  of  the  Prophets  cited.  The  earliest 
of  the  manuscripts  is  dated  916  A.  D.  Although  sixth  century  dates  have  been  defended 
for  certain  manuscripts,  that  of  the  Pentateuch  from  circa  820-850  (Or.  4445)  and  the 
Karaite  synagogue  manuscript  of  the  Latter  Prophets,  'written  827  years  after  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Temple,'  i.  e.,  895  A.  D.,  are  generally  regarded  as  the  oldest. 


4  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

from  the  thought  of  the  first  or  assault  upon  the  idiom  of  the 
second.  The  vagaries  of  translators  are  also  all  but  incalculable. 
In  testing  one's  retranslation  of  a  reading  the  dividing  line 
between  the  necessary  use  of  the  Hebrew  text  for  guidance  and 
prejudicial  dependence  upon  it  is  hard  to  locate.  Because  he 
cannot  entirely  penetrate  the  structural  difference  of  the  two 
dead  languages,  the  critic  is  inclined  to  find  variants  where  none 
exist  ;  and  in  obvious  disagreements  he  is  apt  to  make  too  little 
allowance  for  the  translator  whose  mental  processes  he  cannot 
sufficiently  follow,  and  whose  knowledge  and  ability  he  cannot 
accurately  gauge.  Enough  has  been  said  to  show  that  the 
"peculiarities  of  each  translator,  the  character  of  his  translation, 
and  the  knowledge  of  both  languages  displayed  "  by  him — infor- 
mation in  regard  to  these  matters  can  of  course  be  gained  only  by 
comparisons  both  within  and  beyond  the  limits  of  the  book  being 
studied1 — are  determining  factors  in  the  evaluation  of  his  version. 
It  is  also  evident  that  the  large  factor  of  ignorance  by  which  the 
critic  is  necessarily  handicapped  establishes  in  all  doubtful  cases  a 
strong  presumption  in  favor  of  the  agreement  of  the  current 
Hebrew  with  the  source  of  a  version.2 

(C.)  The  necessity  of  freeing  the  text  of  each  version  from 
inner  corruptions  by  tracing  it  as  far  back  as  possible  is  patent. 
Neither  the  Vulgate,  Peshitta  nor  Septuagint  can,  however,  be 
carried  back  to  the  time  of  their  origin,3  and  it  is  therefore  neces- 
sary to  seek  such  help  as  early  quotations  can  give.  The  mutual 
relation  of  the  versions  has  an  important  bearing  on  their  value 
as  witnesses,  and  consequently  the  presence  or  absence  of  inter- 
dependence must  be  established. 

1  In  the  case  of  the  Septuagint  these  comparisons  are  much  facilitated  by  the  excel- 
lent concordances  available,  but  with  the  Peshitta  the  work  is  most  difficult  because  of 
the  lack  of  these  helps.    Dutripon's  Concordantiae  Bibliorum  Sacrorum    Vulgatae 
Editionis  can  be  used  with  great  advantage  together  with  a  Hebrew  concordance. 

2  Of  the  three  equations  Version  <:  Massoretic  Text,  Version  =  Massoretic  Text  and 
Version  >  Massoretic  Text,  the  possibilities  of  the  second  must  be  exhausted  before  the 
others  can  present  themselves.    Ryssel  assumed  that  the  Massoretic  Text  was  preferable 
to  the  Septuagint ;  Frankel  tried  always  to  make  the  Massoretic  Text  equal  the  Septua- 
gint ;  Streane  held  that  the  Septuagint  was  better  than  the  Massoretic  Text  (cf.  Stek- 
hoven,  De  Alexaandrijnsche  Vertaling  van  het  Dodekaprofeton,  p.  121;  Hastings' 
Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  IV,  p.  731b).    Frankel's  results  are  therefore  in  so  far  forth  the 
most  dependable. 

8  It  is  not  definitely  known  when  the  Septuagint  and  the  Peshitta  originated ;  and 
although  Jerome  translated  Zephaniah  about  393  A.  D.,  the  date  of  the  manuscripts  used 
by  him  is  unknown. 


Introduction.  5 

§  III.  The  method  of  procedure  adopted  in  the  present  inquiry 
is  based  on  the  above  considerations.  The  history  of  the  versions 
has  been  separately  discussed  to  locate  and  establish  the  best 
obtainable  text  of  Zephaniah  in  each.  The  equivalents,  which  are 
obviously  due  to  the  character  of  the  translation  or  to  linguistic 
necessity,  and  those  which  must,  because  of  the  absence  of  evi- 
dence to  the  contrary,  be  ascribed  to  the  characteristics  or  nuances 
of  the  translator,  have  been  grouped  together,  and  for  the  Vul- 
gate presented  in  a  summary,  for  the  Peshitta  and  Septuagint 
exhibited  in  toto.  The  question  of  interdependence  has  been 
considered,  and  such  readings  as  have  demanded  individual  con- 
sideration have  been  discussed.  Thus  the  versions  have  been 
summoned  to  show  cause  why  they  should  be  regarded  as  aids  in 
the  criticism  of  the  text  of  Zephaniah,  and  not  rather  as  worthy 
monuments  of  ancient  interpretation.  Whether  they  vindicate 
their  value  for  criticism  or  not,  they  can  help  to  fix  the  history 
of  the  Hebrew  text  only  to  the  time  when  the  earliest  of  them 
was  made.  Beyond  this  point,  if  the  text  obtained  does  not 
commend  itself  as  a  true  copy  of  the  autograph,  external  criti- 
cism by  the  help  of  translations  must  yield  to  Conjectural  Criti- 
cism. A  tree  only  the  top  of  which  is  visible  above  some  obstruc- 
tion illustrates  quite  accurately  what  can  be  known  of  the  text  of 
Zephaniah.  The  angles  of  convergence  must  indicate  where  the 
continuation  of  the  trunk  is,  and  where  branches  and  trunk  join. 
The  present  investigation  thus  resolves  itself  into  a  test  of  the 
Hebrew  transmission  at  three  points,  the  exact  location  of  which 
is  unknown.  This  somewhat  anticipatory  statement  has,  it  is 
hoped,  outlined  with  sufficient  clearness  the  general  trend  of  the 
discussion  and  vindicated  the  method  employed. 

§  IV.  The  little  that  the  Hebrew  text  in  editions  and  manu- 
scripts offers  may  be  at  once  presented.1  I1  rvpm — R.  JTpSn ,  cf. 
Peshitta;  pDK — R.  j'DK,  due  to  the  accidental  joining  of  the 
strokes  for  i  and  final  j .  I4  iKtf — K.  (3  MSS.)  Dtf,  cf.  Septua- 
gint. run — R.  Kim,  error  due  to  the  forgetfulness  of  a  scribe 
who  carried  his  copy  in  his  memory  from  clause  to  clause ;  n« — 


i  Kittel's  text  is  used  as  a  basis ;  B.  =  Baer  and  Delitzsch  ;  G.  =Ginsburg  (not  his  latest 
edition  of  1908);  T.  =  Thiele;  W.  =  Walton's  Polyglot;  M.  =  Massoretic  Notes;  R.  =  De 
Rossi's  Collations ;  K.  =  Kennicott's  Collations  as  cited  by  R. 


6  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

R.  n&O ,  to  avoid  possible  confusion  due  to  asyndeton.  I6  r\UJ — 
R.  rnu,  error  of  vision.  I6  i#p:j — G.  B.  wpi .  I8  ontfn  by — R. 
ontyn  SD  Sy  ,  error  of  memory,  cf.  I4.  I12  r\^3 — R.  DV3  ,  cf.  Septu- 
agint.  I16  D^y — R.  D^n ,  error  of  hearing,  frequent  with  gut- 
turals. 21  itfKnpnn — B.  nstehpnn.  22  p;j — T.  W.  -pnD;  D-\DU 
clause  (3)  omitted,  R.  (6  MSS.),  K.  (8  MSS.),  homoioteleuton. 
24  niEhr — B.  mtfnr .  27  onntf — M.  orratf  (G.  does  not  point  this 
word).  29  SU — R.  DTI,  error  of  memory,  cf.  I4;  OITT — W.  DN3\ 
212  '3in— R.  mn,  cf.  Peshitta.  214  n«p_ B.  n«p;  ^D3— M.  ^D3. 
2161T — M.  iiyKi,  odd  expression,  occurring  here  only,  changed  to  the 
usual  one.  31  runiD — G.  B.  ntnn  .  32  x1? — R.  xbi ,  cf.  I4;  ^K — 
R.  SKI,  cf.  I4.  34  D^ma— T.  o-mia.  39  naj;1?— R.  na^Si ,  cf.  I4. 
310  ^ia  rn  omitted,  R.  (IMS.),  K.  (1  MS.),  cf.  Septuagint  and 
Peshitta.  314  T?jn — B.  '•iSjji .  315  p-K — R.  ^K,  error  of  memory, 
cf.  I4  ;  <Kvn— M.  R.  K.  ^-in;  ;n— B.  G.  ^.  318  ^y— M.  R. 
!j^^ ,  decision  must  be  arbitrary,  cf.  Peshitta  and  the  Revised  Ver- 
sion. 320  D^ry1?— R.  M.  orrr/7,  cf.  318. 

The  printed  texts  from  Walton  to  Kittel  are  identical  except 
in  a  few  pointings  and  matres  lectionis.  The  sporadic  readings 
in  the  collations  are  either  due  to  the  versions  or  are  explainable  as 
common  corruptions  in  manuscript  transmission.  Other  explana- 
tions than  those  given  above  may  be  equally  satisfactory  ;  but  the 
true  reading  is  nowhere  in  doubt,  as  each  variant  has  the  support 
of  only  a  few  manuscripts  at  most.  It  is  evident  that  the  arche- 
type of  the  manuscripts  and  printed  texts  here  represented  has 
been  transmitted  with  remarkable  accuracy. 


CHAPTEE  I. 

THE    VULGATE. 

§  1.  The  history  of  Jerome's  translation  may  be  divided  into 
three  epochs  of  unequal  length,  the  first  and  second  each  cul- 
minating in  an  important  recension  of  the  text,  the  third  con- 
tinuing into  the  present.  The  first  period  is  one  of  conflict 
between  it  and  the  Old  Latin  which  it  was  meant  to  supersede. 
The  new  translation  met  with  violent  opposition  from  many 
quarters,  and  its  introduction  was  therefore  very  gradual.  The 


The  Vulgate.  7 

fact  that  the  older  version  persisted  and  the  method  by  which  a 
text  had  to  be  transmitted  conspired  together  to  rob  Jerome's 
translation  of  its  purity  in  this  conflict  of  almost  four  centuries. 
It  could  conquer  the  older  version  only  by  absorbing  many  of  its 
characteristics,  while  every  copy  that  was  made  both  transmitted 
and  increased  errors.  The  power  of  the  Church  was  being  more 
and  more  concentrated  and  its  influence  so  extended  that  it  was 
gradually  becoming  the  dominant  force  in  Western  Europe  ;  but 
the  authority  of  the^  Bible,  which  was  the  foundation  on  which 
the  whole  structure  of  the  ecclesiastical  hierarchy  was  felt  to  rest, 
was  being  dissipated  more  and  more,  because  hardly  two  copies 
of  it  were  in  agreement.  A  supreme  papacy  needed  an  official 
text,  and  it  remained  for  Charlemagne,  who  was  actuated  mainly 
by  liturgical  motives,  to  establish  one  by  means  of  the  recension 
undertaken  at  his  behest  by  Alcuin.  Theodulf  (f  821)  made  an 
independent  recension  at  about  the  same  time.  The  Vulgate 
which  was  thus  established  doubtless  differed  in  many  important 
particulars  from  Jerome's  autograph,  but  unfortunately  very  little 
is  known  of  the  history  of  the  text  during  these  centuries  of  con- 
flict; and  the  students  of  Latin  Bible  texts  are  consequently 
unable  with  any  degree  of  fulness  to  trace  out  the  process  by 
which  the  Carolingian  Vulgate  was  evolved.  The  verses  quoted 
by  the  church  fathers  of  the  period  and  the  few  incidental 
remarks  scattered  here  and  there  through  the  pages  of  their 
writings  throw  but  a  feeble  light  into  the  darkness,  which  begins 
to  lift  only  in  the  last  century  (VIII). 

§  II.  Toward  the  close  of  this  epoch  and  in  the  next  the  Vul- 
gate takes  higher  and  higher  rank.  Wherever  the  Church  goes, 
it  goes  as  the  official  version  of  the  Word  of  God,  while  Latin 
becomes  everywhere  the  language  of  worship.  The  artificial 
unity  of  language  thus  established  was  a  powerful  factor  in  build- 
ing up  an  ecclesiastical  sovereignty  that  practically  obliterated 
national  boundaries.  The  Hildebrandian  Papacy  had  been  all 
but  impossible  without  the  Vulgate,  which  had  for  many  centuries, 
first  through  use  in  missionary  propaganda,  and  then  in  the  litur- 
gies and  lectionaries  of  worship,  been  welding  together  the 
diverse  elements  of  which  it  was  composed.  The  torch  of  learn- 
ing, though  it  burned  most  dimly,  was  borne  along  by  the  Church 


8  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

alone  during  this  dark  period;  and  the  only  text-book  in  most 
curricula  was  the  Vulgate.  Copies  were  multiplied  with  great 
rapidity  in  the  schools  and  monasteries.  Again,  as  was  inevita- 
ble, the  text  became  so  corrupt  that  many  recensions  were  made. 
These  sporadic  attempts  could,  however,  bring  about  no  perma- 
nent improvement,  because  manuscripts  were  so  widely  distributed 
that  concerted  effort  was  impossible,  while  the  scribes'  choice  of 
exemplars  to  copy  was  controlled  by  the  flimsiest  critical  princi- 
ples, if  by  any.1  Even  the  early  printed  editions  were  for  the 
most  part  set  up  from  such  manuscripts  as  were  near  at  hand.  It 
remained  for  the  Council  of  Trent  to  suggest  the  remedy  that 
the  discovery  of  printing  had  made  possible,  and  the  Sixtine- 
Clementine  edition  is  the  result  of  a  decree  passed  by  that  body. 
With  but  few  exceptions  the  8000  extant  manuscripts  of  the 
Vulgate  belong  to  this  period.  The  text  to  be  found  in  them  is 
almost  uniformly  corrupt. 

§111.  The  third  period  of  the  Vulgate's  history  begins  with 
the  Clementine  text  of  1592.  It  is  still  the  official  text  of  the 
Vatican.  Many  reprints  of  it  have  been  made ;  but  no  edition, 
embracing  the  results  of  the  latest  discoveries  and  based  on 
approved  critical  methods,  has  yet  appeared,  at  least  not  for  the 
Old  Testament.  Heyse  and  Tischendorf's  pretentious  Biblia 
Sacra  Lat.  Vet.  Test.  Hieronymo  interprete  (1873)  is  practically 
identical  with  Bagster's  cheap  reprint.2  The  Latin  column  of 
Funk  and  Wagnall's  popular  Hexapla  Bible  (1906)  differs  only 
in  a  few  punctuations  from  the  de  luxe  edition,  Biblia  Sacra  Vul- 
gata  (Critice  edidit  P.  M.  Helzenover,  1906),  in  which  at  least 
one  misprint  has  escaped  the  proofreader.3  Vercellone's  Sacra 
Vulgatae  Editionis  Sixti  V et  Clementis  VIII  (Rome,  1861)  is 
generally  regarded  as  the  best.4 


1  Cf.  Berger,  Histoire  de  la   Vulgate  pendant  les  premiers  siecles  du  moyen  dge, 
Paris,  1893,  pp.  329,  330. 

2  The  differences  between  them  in  Zephaniah  are  as  follows,  Bagster's  text  being  the 
first  cited;   I3"5  Coeli—caeli,  22<a  Domini— Dm,  26  speciosam—Speciosam,  314 lauda,— 
lauda,  jubila,— jubila,  corde, — corde.  31'  nolitimere — noli  timer e.  3ig  fuerat,—fuerat. 

3  3"  Adijcies  for  adjicies. 

*  Now  and  again  more  or  less  extensive  excursions  have  been  made  into  the  field  of 
the  textual  criticism  of  the  Vulgate  Old  Testament,  but  on  the  whole  it  is  still  an  unex- 
plored domain.  Berger,  in  the  introduction  to  the  work  already  mentioned,  gives  a  very 
satisfactory  sketch  of  what  has  been  accomplished  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 
The  book  itself  takes  rank  as  a  classic  in  Vulgate  studies  and  contains  a  complete  bibli- 
ography. 


The  Vulgate.  9 

§IV.  The  Vulgate  manuscripts  must  be  considered  in  their 
geographical  distribution;  for  three  main  types  of  texts,  kept 
more  or  less  distinct  from  each  other  by  natural  boundaries,  are 
clearly  defined.  Ireland  and  Spain  because  of  their  location  both 
remained  for  the  most  part  isolated  from  the  rest  of  Europe. 
The  Vulgate  text,  which  was  early  taken  to  these  countries,  was 
thus  kept  separated  from  the  main  continental  current  of  trans- 
mission. As  the  purity  of  a  text  is,  generally  speaking,  inversely 
proportioned  to  the  number  of  times  it  has  been  copied,  the  rate 
of  corruption  of  manuscripts  was  much  less  rapid  in  Ireland  and 
Spain  than  elsewhere.  But  Irish  missionaries  and  Irish  monks 
kept  carrying  the  Irish  text  to  different  parts  of  the  continent ; 
and  in  the  first  year  of  the  ninth  century  the  Alcuin  recension 
brought  the  Irish  type  of  text  back  into  the  main  stream  of  trans- 
mission, for  he  is  known  to  have  sent  to  York  for  manuscripts  to 
be  used  in  his  work. 1  Theodulf  seems  to  have  been  familiar  with 
the  manuscripts  in  use  in  the  South  of  France,  and  his  collations 
may  have  brought  into  the  main  current  many  characteristic 
Spanish  readings.  In  the  Clementine  text  these  three  types  are 
blended,  for  manuscripts  from  many  places  were  collated  for  it. 
As  compared  with  each  other,  the  pure  Irish  type  is  much  better 
than  the  pure  Spanish.  The  known  national  characteristics  of 
the  two  peoples  lead  to  the  inference  that  Irish  manuscripts 
would  be  less  ornamental  and  more  accurate,  and  this  is  confirmed 
by  all  that  is  known  of  the  types. 

§  V.  It  is  clear  from  what  has  been  said  that  a  comparison  of 
manuscripts  of  these  three  types  will  yield  the  earliest  obtainable 
text.  The  Codex  Amiatinus  is  earlier  than  the  Alcuin  recension,2 
and  the  Codex  Toletanus  antedates  Theodulf.3  For  the  conti- 
nental type,  in  lieu  of  anything  better,  the  Clementine  must  needs 
be  used.  The  results  of  such  a  comparison  for  Zephaniah  are  as 
follows:4  I1  Sophoniam  filium  Chusi. — A.  Sofoniam  filium  Cusi 

1  Jaffe,  Monumenta  Alcuiniana,  p.  346. 

3  A  very  interesting  account  of  how  the  age  of  this,  the  best  of  the  Irish  manuscripts, 
was  finally  fixed  is  to  be  found  in  Studio,  Biblica  et  Ecclesiastica,  Oxford,  1890,  II,  pp. 
273  ff. 

3  A  description  of  these  manuscripts  may  be  found  in  Berger's  Histoire  de  la  Vulgate^ 
etc.,  pp.  37  f.  and  pp.  12  f. 

*  The  Clementine  text  is  used  as  a  basis.  A=Amiatinus;  T.=Toletanus.  The  collation 
of  A.  is  taken  from  Heyse  and  Tischendorf  s  apparatus ;  that  of  T.  from  Migne's  Patrolo- 
ffia  Latina,  XXIX,  p.  1027.  Italics  have  been  used  to  indicate  the  readings  which 
deserve  the  preference.  Where  more  definite  criteria  fail  (cf.  214),  It  is  necessary,  since 
relative  values  have  not  yet  been  fixed,  to  decide  by  simple  majority  rule.  Readings 
that  are  evidently  corruptions  have  been  marked  as  such. 


10  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

(Jerome  is  known  to  have  aspirated  the  Begadkefat ;  cf .  Lagarde's 
Onomastica,  index),  filii  Godaliae — A.  T.  filium  Godaliae  (this 
is  perhaps  an  Old  Latin  reading  as  it  agrees  with  the  Septuagint). 
ftlii  Amariae  filii — T.  filium  Amariae  filium  (the  sense  demands 
the  genitive).  Hheciae — A.  Ezechiae  (p  was  not  aspirated  by 
Jerome  in  transliteration ;  cf .  Lagarde's  Onomastica,  index) .  Amon 
— A.  Ammon.  Judae — T.  Juda.  I3  volatilia — A.  T.  volatile.  I6 
super  omnem — A.  omnem.  omnem  ....  qui  ingreditur — T. 
omnes  ....  qui  ingrediuntur.  I11  Pilae — T.  filiae  (corruption). 
disperierunt — T.  dispergerunt  (corruption).  I^faecibus — A.  feci- 
bus  (spelled  foecibus,  Jer.  48";  the  spelling  fex  is  allowable;  cf. 
Harper '« Latin  Dictionary ,  p.  744).  faciet — A.  faciat  (corruption). 
I14  Juxta  est — A.  Juxta  et  (corruption).  I17  corpora — A.  corpus. 
I18  faciet  cunctis — T.  faciet  Dominus  cunctis  (interpretative  addi- 
tion, suggested  perhaps  by  I12).  22  super  vos  ira — A.  ira;  ante- 
quam  clause  (2)  omitted — T.  (This  may  be  Old  Latin,  cf.  p.  31.) 
Indignationis — A.  furoris  (in  the  Liber  de  Divinis  Scripturis 
sive  Speculum,  XVI,  De  Libro  Sophoniae,  this  same  variant 
occurs  in  an  evident  Vulgate  text,  and  therefore  the  reading  of 
A.  is  to  be  adopted).  2s  qui — T.  quia  (corruption).  2B  Philisthino- 
rum — A.  Philistinorum  (cf.  I1),  inhabitator—  T.  habitator.  2' 
pecorum — T.  ovium  (this  may  be  Old  Latin).  27  remanserit — A. 
manserit.  2H  quae — T.  qui  (corruption).  29  Gomorrha — A.  Gomorra 
(cf.  I1),  in  aeternum — T.  in  sempiternum  (this  may  be  another 
Old  Latin  reading),  eoset  .  .  .  .  illos — A.  T.  illos  .  .  .  .  illos  (the 
agreement  of  A.  and  T.  is  hard  to  explain  unless  they  represent 

the  Old  Latin ;  the  Septuagint  has  avroi>s  K<U avrovs,  thus 

the  agreement  with  it  is  only  partial).  211  viri — A.  T.  vir  (in  a 
quotation,  evidently  made  from  memory,  Augustine  has  vir  with 
adorabit.  He  seems  to  have  changed  the  number  of  the  verb  to 
turn  this  Hebraism  into  intelligible  Latin,  whereas  the  Clemen- 
tine text  has  changed  the  number  of  the  noun).  212  et  vos  Aethi- 
opes — T.  et  vos  et  Aethiopes  (dittography).  213  Speciosam — A. 
T.  Speciosa  (Jerome's  translation  of  Nineveh  is  hardly  intelligible 
in  Latin,  and  the  unusual  fern.  sing.  adj.  was  early  corrupted  into 
the  ordinary  neut.  plu.).  214  quoniam — T.  quum.  215  civitas  glori- 
osa — A.  gloriosa  civitas  (accidental  inversion).  32  confisa — T. 
confixa  (corruption),  appropinquavit — A.  adpropiavit  (corrup- 


The  Vulgate.  11 

tion).  35  mane  mane — A.  T.  mane  (homoioteleutonic  omission; 
or  perhaps  better,  the  Hebraism  was  early  removed),  lucem — A. 
luce  (corruption).  36  disperdidi — A.  disperdi,  T.  disperdit  (cor- 
ruptions), neque  ullo — A.  nee  ullo.  37  dixi  attamen — A.  dixit 
tamen  (corruption),  suscipies — T.  suscipe  (as  timebis  was  read, 
suscipe  must  be  a  corruption).  3s  et  effundam — A.  T.  ut  effun- 
dam (the  reading  ut  may  be  accepted,  not  only  because  it  is  sup- 
ported by  these  two  ancient  manuscripts,  but  because  it  brings 
out  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  better;  per  se  a  corruption  is 
possible  either  way ;  the  Old  Latin  has  et).  indignationem — T. 
oninem  indignationem  (dittography  due  to  following  omnem). 
39  invocent — A.  T.  vocent.  313  mendacium  et  non — T.  menda- 
cium  non  (accidental  omission).  3H  Jubila — A.  Jubilate  (inter- 
pretative with  Israel  in  distributive  sense).  317  salvabit — T. 
salvabit  te  (perhaps  due  to  Old  Latin  influence;  cf.  Septuagint). 
exsultabit — T.  et  exsultabit  (cf.  Septuagint;  more  likely,  how- 
ever, an  ordinary  sporadic  reading).  319  earn  quae  ejecta  fuerat 
— T.  ea  quae  electa  fuerant  (corruption).  320  tempore  quo  con- 
gregabo — T.  tempore  congregabo  (monograph y). 

§  VI.  Since  the  distance  of  the  text  now  established  from  the 
autograph  must  still  be  measured  in  centuries,  many  Old  Latin 
elements  that  crept  in  after  Jerome  had  finished  his  work  may  be 
contained  in  it.  The  Spanish  text  as  a  whole  is  known  to  betray 
an  especially  strong  Old  Latin  influence,  and  perhaps  the  syno- 
nyms of  T.  in  27>  8,  as  well  as  other  readings  peculiar  to  this  man- 
uscript (317),  come  from  this  source.  The  Old  Latin  of  Zephaniah 
has  not  survived,1  and  consequently  it  cannot  be  directly  deter- 
mined how  much  of  it,  if  anything,  has  passed  into  the  Vulgate 
either  originally  through  Jerome  himself,  who  sometimes  con- 
sciously, and  perhaps  more  often  unconsciously,  incorporated  its 
readings,  or  through  subsequent  confusions  due  to  their  transmis- 
sion side  by  side.  In  the  belief  that  they  would  be  of  interest, 
and,  perhaps,  even  of  importance  in  this  connection,  a  collection 
of  quotations  from  the  early  Latin  Fathers  was  made.3  It  was 


1  There  seems  to  be  a  manuscript  in  the  Vatican  which  contains  the  last  eight  verses  of 
the  Old  Latin  of  Zephaniah ;  cf.  Swete,  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  in  Greek, 
p.  97. 

2  After  the  collection  was  completed  it  was  found  that  a  similar  collection  had  already 
been  published  ;  cf.  Journal  of  Theological  Studies,  1903,  p.  76.    The  results  of  these 
two  independent  examinations  are  in  substantial  agreement. 


12  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

rather  disappointing  to  find  that  only  a  few  of  the  Latin  ecclesi- 
astical writers  before  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century  were  cited 
in  the  critical  editions  of  their  works  as  having  referred  to 
Zephaniah.  In  Tertullian  only  an  allusion  to  the  dies  irae  was 
to  be  found.  A  single  clause  occurs  in  Nolan  us: 

lllb  JExterminati  sunt  omnes  qui  exultati  fuerant  auro  et 
argento. 

Vulgate:  disperierunt  omnes  involuti  argento.  This  can  be 
regarded  only  as  an  expansive  allusion  to  Zephaniah.  Cassian 
quotes  a  clause,  the  thought  of  which  is  of  such  a  nature  that 
divergence  in  its  expression  is  practically  impossible  except  in 
particles : 

I12b  Qui  dicunt  in  cordibus  suis,  non  faciet  Dominus  bene,  sed 
neque  faciet  male. 

Vulgate:  Qui  dicunt  in  cordibus  suis :  non  faciet  bene  domi- 
nus, et  non  faciet  male. 

More  than  a  third  of  the  book  can  be  recovered  from  Cyprian, 
Augustine  and  Tyconius.1  For  the  purposes  of  comparison  that 
which  seems  to  be  genuine  Old  Latin  has  been  here  placed 
between  the  Vulgate  and  the  Septuagint. 


1  The  Liber  de  Divinis  Scripturis  sive  Speculum  is  here  regarded  as  the  work  of 
Augustine,  to  whom  it  is  attributed  by  its  editor  for  the  Corpus  Scriptorum  Ecclesiasti- 
corum  Latinorum,  Vienna  Academy.  It  is,  however,  by  many  attributed  to  an  unknown 
author.  Augustine's  capriciousness  in  quotation  is  abundantly  sustained.  His  text 
agrees  with  that  of  the  Vulgate  in  five  passages,  I4h.7a-  nbt  2i-3,  ssa-ia-isa.  FOr  21.3  and  312 
he  has  also  quoted  the  Old  Latin.  His  two  quotations  of  211  are  so  mingled  that  he 
must  have  quoted  from  memory  in  both  cases. 

Augustine  (1).  Praevalebit  dominus  adversus  eos  et  exterminabit  omnes  deos  gen- 
tium terrae,  et  adorabunt  eum  unus  quisque  de  loco  suo,  omnes  insulae  gentium. 

Augustine  (2).  Horribilis  Dominus  super  eos,  et  exterminabit  omnes  deos  terrae,  et 
adorabit  eum  vir  de  loco  suo,  omnes  insulae  gentium. 

Vulgate.  Horribilis  Dominus  super  eos,  et  attenuabit  omnes  deos  terrae;  et  adora- 
bunt eum  vir  de  loco  suo,  omnes  insulae  Gentium. 


The  Vulgate. 


13 


VULGATE. 

(I8'3)  Congregans  congre- 
gabo  omnia  a  facie  terrae, 
dicit  Dominus :  Congregans 
hoininem,  et  pecus,  congre- 
gans  volatile  eoeli,  et  pisces 

marls : et  disperdam 

homines  a  facie  terrae 

(P)  Silete  a  facie  Domini  Dei : 
quia  juxta  est  dies  Domini 
quia  praeparavit  Dominus 
hostiam,  sanctificavit  voca- 
tos  suos.  (lllb)  Disperierunt 
omnes  i  n  v  o  1  u  t  i  argento. 
(list-  i4a)  Aedificabunt  domos, 
etnon  habitabunt:  et  planta- 
bunt  vineas,  et  non  bibent 
vinum  earum.  Juxta  est  dies 
Domini  magnus.  (I14b-16)  Vox 
die!  Domini  amara,  tribula- 
bitur  ibi  fortis.  Dies  irae 
dies  ilia,  dies  tribulationis 
et  angustiae,  dies  calamitatis 
et  miseriae,  dies  tenebrarum 
et  caliginis,  dies  nebulae  et 
turbinis,  dies  tubae  et  clan- 
goris  super  civitates  munitas, 
et  super  angulos  excelsos. 
(Ii7b-  isa)  Et  effundetur  san- 
guis  eorum  sicut  humus,  et 
corpora  eorum  sicut  stercora. 
Sed  et  argentum  eorum,  et 
aurum  eorum  non  poterit 
liberare  eos  in  die  irae  Dom- 
ini. (2i-8)  Convenite,  congre- 
gamini  gens  non  amabilis: 
Priusquam  pariat  jussio  quasi 
pulverem  transeuntem  diem, 

antequam    veniat 

super  vos  dies  furoris  Dom- 
ini. Quaerite  Dominum, 


OLD  LATIN. 

(!»•«,  Cyprian)  Defectlone 
deticiat  a  facie  terrae  dicit 
Dominus,  deficiat  homo  et 
pecudes,  deficiant  volucres 
caeli  et  pisces  marls  et  au- 
feram  iniquos  a  facie  terrae. 
(V,  Cyprian)  Metuite  a  facie 
Domini  Dei,  quoniam  prope 
est  dies  ejus;  quia  paravit 
Dominus  sacriflcium  suum, 
sanctificavit  vocatos  suos. 
(lllb,  Speculum)  Disperierunt 
omnes  qui  exaltantur  in 
argento  [et  auro].  (l»b.  "», 
Cyprian)  Aedificabunt  domos 
et  non  inhabitabunt,  et  insti- 
tuent  vineas  et  non  bibent 
vinum  earum,  quia  prope  est 
dies  Domini,  (li^-is,  Specu- 
lum) Vox  diei  domini  amara 
et  dura  constituta,  dies  po- 
tens,  dies  iracundiae  dies  ille, 
dies  tribulationis  et  necessi- 
tatis,  dies  infelicitatis  et  ex- 
terminii,  dies  tenebrarum  et 
tempestatis,  dies  nubis  et  cali- 
ginis, dies  tubae  et  clamoris 
super  civitates  firmas  et  super 
angulos  excelsos.  (I17b>  18a, 
Speculum)  Et  effundam  san- 
guinem  eorum  sicut  limum, 
et  carnes  eorum  sicut  stercus1 
bourn  et  argentum  et  aurum 
eorum  non  poterit  liberare 
eos  in  die  irae  domini. 
(2i-3,  Speculum)  Convenite 
et  congregamini  populus  in- 
disciplinatus,  priusquam 
emciamini  sicut  flos  prae- 
teriens  priusquam  super- 
veniat  super  vos  dies  iracun- 
diae domini.  Quaerite  dom- 


SEPTUAGINT. 


1  stercora  in  another  place. 


dirb  Trpoff&irov  rijs  7775, 
Kvpios.     'ExXiTT^Tw  avdp(t)iros 

Kal     KTT?)Vr)     ^XlTT^TW     TO.    7TC- 

Teivd  TOV  ovpavov  Kal  ol 
TTJS  da\d<ro"rjs  '  .  .  .  .  Kal 
TOVS  dv6fwvs  dirb  irpo- 
XT)?  yijs  ....  (!') 
atrb  irpoffdirov 
TOU  0eou  '  5i6rt  ^771)5  17 
-rj/ji^pa  TOU  Kup/ou,  8ri  ^r 


Kf  TOI>S  K\r}TOVS  O.VTOJ.        (lllb) 

....  ££(i}\o0p€ti0Trjffa,v  Trdvres  ol 
dpyvpiy.    (Ii3b.i4a) 


Kal  ov  /j. 
avrais  '  Kal  KaTa<pVTev<rov<riv 
d/LtTreXtDvas,  Kal  ov  ^  irluffi. 
TOV  olvov  auTwv.  "Ort  ^771)$  17 
Wpa  Kvpiov  ....  (Ii4b.i6) 
(fxavTj  ij^pas  Kvpiov  iriKpa  Kal 
ffK\-rjpa  rtraKTai.  Avvarij 
6pyi)S,  i) 
^X^ews  Kal 
awplas  Kal  d<pavifffJU)v, 
GKOTOVS  Kal  yv6<pov, 
ve0A7;s  Kal  oplx^*}*, 
(T(£X7ri77os  Kal  Kpav- 
7^s  lirl  ras  7r6Xets  TCLS  6xv- 
/oas,  Kal  £irl  ras  ywvlas  ras 


%ee?  rb  a?/xa  avr&v 

Kal    rds    ffdpKas    avruv    a>s 

/86Xj3tra.     Kai    rb    dpyvpiov 

avruv  Kal  rb  xPvfftov  avrGiv 

ov  IJ.T]    dtivyrai  £%€\t(rdai  av~ 

TOVS  tv  ijiJ-tpa  dpyijs  Kvpiov. 

(21*8)  Svvdx^re, 

6-rjTe  rb  fdvos  rb 

irpb    TOV    yevtffdat    v/j.as 


Trpb    TOV 

yfdpav  dv/Jiov  Kvpiov. 

(Tare  Tbv  Kvpiov  irdvTes  Tairei- 


14 


The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 


VULGATE. 

omnes  mansueti  terrae,  qui 
judicium  ejus  estis  operati: 
quaerite  just  urn,  quaerite 
mansuetum :  si  quomodo  ab- 
scondamini  in  die  furoris 
Domini.  (2i3_35a)Et  extendet 
manum  suam  super  Aquilo- 

nem, et  ponet  Specio- 

sam  in  solitudinem,  et  in 
invium,  et  quasi  desertum. 
Et  accubabunt  in  medio  ejus 
greges,  omnes  bestiae  Gen- 
tium :  et  onocrotalus,  et  eri- 
cius  in  liminibus  ejus  mora- 
buntur :  vox  cantantis  in 
fenestra,  corvus  in  superlimi- 
n  a  r  i,  quoniam  attenuabo 
robur  ejus.  Haec  est  civitas 
gloriosa  habitans  in  confiden- 
tia:  quae  dicebat  in  corde 
suo:  Ego  sum,  et  extra  me 
nonest  aliaamplius:  quomodo 
facta  est  in  desertum  cubile 
bestiae?  omnis,  qui  transit 
per  earn,  sibilabit,  et  move- 
bit  manum  suam.  Vae  pro- 
vocatrix,  et  redempta  civitas, 
columba.  Nonaudivitvocem, 
et  non  suscepit  disciplinam  : 
in  Domino  non  est  confisa, 
ad  Deum  suum  non  appropin- 
quavit.  Principes  ejus  in 
medio  ejus  quasi  leones  rugi- 
entes :  judices  ejus  lupi  ves- 
pere,  non  relinquebant  in 
mane.  Prophetae  ej us  vesani , 
viri  infideles :  sacerdotes  ejus 
polluerunt  sanctum,  injuste 
egerunt  contra  legem.  Domi- 
nus  Justus  in  medio  ejus  non 
faciet  iniquitatem.  (38) 
expecta  me,  dicit  Dominus, 
in  die  resurrectionis  meae  in 
futurum,  quia  judicium  meum 
ut  congregem  Gentes  et  colli- 
gam  regna :  ut  effundam  su- 
per eos  indignationem  meam, 


OLD    LATIN. 

inum  omnes  humiles  terrae, 
aequitatem  operamini,  et 
justitiam  quaerite,  et  respon- 
dete  ea ,  ut  protegamini  in  die 
irae  domini.  (2i3-35a)  Tycon- 
ius)  Et  extendet  manum  suam 
in  Aquilonem  et  ponet  illam 
Nineve  exterminium  sine 
aqua  in  desertum,  et  pascen- 
tur  in  medio  ejus  greges 
omnes  bestiae  terrae.  et 
chameleontes,  et  hericii  in 
laquearibus  ejus  cubabunt,  et 
bestiae  vocem  dabunt  in  fos- 
sis  ejus,  et  corvi  in  partis  ejus 
quoniam  cedrus  altitude  ejus. 
Civitas  contemnens  quae 
habitat  in  spe,  quae  dicit  in 
corde  suo  Ego  sum,  et  non  est 
post  me  adhuc !  Quomodo 
facta  est  in  exterminium  pas- 
cua  bestiarum !  Omnis  qui 
transit  per  illam  sibilabit,  et 
movebit  manus  suas.  O  in- 
lustris  et  redempta  civitas, 
columba  quae  non  audit  vo- 
cem, non  recepit  disciplinam. 
in  Domino  non  est  connsa,  et 
ad  Deum  suum  non  adpro- 
pinquavit,  principes  ejus  in 
ea  ut  leones  frementes,  judices 
ejus  ut  lupi  Arabiae  non  re- 
linquebant in  mane,  profetae 
ejus  spiritu  elati  viri  contemp- 
tores,  sacerdotes  ejus  profa- 
nant  sacra  e  t  conscelerant 
legem.  Dominus  autem  Justus 
in  medio  ejus,  non  faciet  in- 
justum.1 


SEPTUAGINT. 

vol  7775,  Kplfjia  e"p7«ife<r0e, 


1  Cyprian's  exegesis  of  31'2 
shows  the  substantial  agree- 
ment of  his  text  with  that 
ofTyconius :— C  o  1  u  m  b  a 
non  exaudit  vocem,  id 
est,  praeclara  et  redempta 
civitas  non  recipit  doctrinam 
et  in  Dominum  fidens  non 
fuit.  In  the  Speculum  a 
clause  of  34  is  quoted:  Sacer- 
dotes ejus  contaminant  sancta 
et  reprobant  legem.  This  is 
perhaps  a  quotation  from 
memory,  as  Tyconius  has  a 
reputation  for  accuracy,  es- 
pecially in  long  passages. 


diroKpivecrde  avrd,  oirus  <r/ce- 
iracrQiJTe  ev  77/^/39  6/37775  Ku- 
plov.  (21335a)  Kal  eKTevei  TT> 
Xeipa  avrov  eirl  fiopbav  .... 
Kal  #77<rei  TTJV  Nti/eu^  els 
d(pat>i<r  fJJbv  avvdpov,  ws  eprj/MV. 
Kal  ve^ffovraL  ev  jtteVy  avrijs 
TTofyma,  Kal  travra  ra  Orjpla 
TTJS  7775,  Kal  xa/ 


avrijs 
dypla 


Kal 


tv  TOIS 


rb  avd<TTT}fj.a 
77  7r6Xis  77  <pav\iffTpia,  77 
KaroiKOVffa  tir"1  ATT/SI,  77 
\tyovffa  tv  KapStq.  ai/TTjs, 
'E7w  ftfu,  Kal  OVK  ftrri  ner"1 
ifj^  en  *  TTcDs  tyevfiOf)  eis 
a<t>avLffpJbv,  vo/J-rj  dfiplwv;  iras 
6  diairopev6/j,€vos  Si1  avrrjs  <rv- 
ptet,  Kal  Kivfoei  ras  xetpas 
avrov.  "ft  77  eirt<pav7]S  Kal 
diro\€\VTpufJi.t}>r)  7r6Xts,  77  TTC- 
purrepa  OVK  elff^Kovffe  <p<i)i>r)S  ' 
O$K  fS^aro  iratSelav,  £iri  rf 
Kvplfp  OVK  eTrcTrot^et,  Kai  irpbs 
rbv  Qebv  avrijs  OVK  tfyyicrev. 
01  apxovres  avrijs  ws  \VKOL 
TIJS  'Apa/3/as,  ovx  vireKlirovTO 
els  TO  irput  01  irpotpTjrat 
avTijs  irv€Vfj.aTo<f>6poi,  avdpes 
Kara(ppovT]Tai  '  iepeis  avrrjs 
f3ef3-r)\ov<ri  rd  ayia,  Kal  dffe- 
(Bovo't  vbfjkov.  '0  d£  Kvpios 
OLKCLLOS  £v  jn&rtjj  auTT^s,  Kal  ov 

'l     aOLKOV  '       (38)  .  .  . 

^7ei  Kfyuos,  ds 
dvaffrdcreibs  pov  els 
ftapTvpiov  '  5t6  rb  Kpl/ma  /JLOV  els 
o-vvaywyds  €0vu>v,  TOV  elff- 
dej-a<r6ai  j3a<rtXe?s,  TOV 


The  Vulgate.  15 

VULGATE.  OLD    LATIN.                                SEPTUAGINT. 

.....  (3»-13a)  Quia  tune  red-  (8»,  Cyprian)  Expecta  me,  &  afoote  ira<rav  dpyijv  6vfwv 

dam  populis  labium  electum,  dicit  Dominus,  in  die  resur-                         /gg.iaax  "QTt 

ut  vocent  omnes  in  nomine  rectionis  meae   in   testimon- 

Domini,  et  serviant  ei  humero  ium  ;    quoniam    j  u  d  i  c  i  u  m  *f««^W*  tirl  Xaoi/j 

uno.    Ultra  flumina  ....  de-  meum  ad  congregationes  gen-  ffo-v  ets  yeveav  ayrT/s,  TOV  £iri- 

ferent  munus   mini.    In   die  tium,  ut   excipiam   reges   et  /taXear^at   Train-as   TO    6vofML 

ilia   non    confunderis    super  effundam    super    eos    iram  K     .            -    5ouXejjetJ/   aljT/j 

cunctis  adinventionibus  tuis,  meam.     (3»-is«,   Augustine)                ' 


,  , 

quibus  praevaricata  es  in  me  :    Transvertam  in  populos  lin-  U7rd  &"*°v  ?"a-       E/c  7re/)aTW" 

quia  tune  auferam  de  medio    guam  et  progenies  ej  us,  ut  in-  iroTa/j-iov    'At0w7r/as    6i<rov<ri 

tui    magniloquos    superbiae    vocent  omnes  nomen  Domini  0v<rlas    (ju>i.     'Ej> 

tuae  et  non  adjicies  exaltari    et  ser-viant  ei  sub  jugo  uno  ;  a  ^ 
amplius  in  montesancto  meo.    finibus   flummum  Aethiopae       , 

Et  derelinquam  in  medio  tui    adferenthostiasmihi.    Inillo  7ra"TWJ' 

populum   pauperem,  et  ege-    die  confunderis  ex  omnibus  ffovi    &v   fyrtpyffas    ets    fyt  • 

num  :  et  sperabunt  in  nomine    adinventionibus     tuis,    quas  3rt  rbre  irepieXu  airb  <rov  rd 

Domini.    Reliquiae  Israel.  .  .    inpie  egisti  in  me  ;  quia  tune  0auXZ(ruoTa   rm   CSecis  aov 
auferam  abs  te  pravitates  in-  n~ 

juriae  tuae  ;  et  jam  non  ad-  **  OVK  €Ti  **«    TOV 


jicies,  ut  magnificeris   super    fJ£ya\avxi)<rai  tirl  rb  6pos 
montem  sanctum   meum,  et    S^tbv  /*ou.     Kai 
subrelinquam  in  te  populum 


„ 

mansuetum  et  humilem  ;   et 


verebantur  a  nomine  Domini,    «"*",    «"* 
qui  reliqui  fuerint  Israel.  ^T^  TOU  6v6fj.affTos  Kupiou  Oi 

KaraXouroi  TOU 


In  these  verses  positive  proof  of  Jerome's  use  of  the  Old  Latin 
is  not  to  be  found.  There  are  a  few  agreements,  but  these  may 
well  be  accidental.1  The  remarkable  differences,  even  in  places 
where  greater  similarity  would  hardly  have  been  surprising 
because  of  the  nature  of  the  ideas  to  be  expressed,  seem  to  pre- 
clude literary  dependence  on  Jerome's  part;  for  this  could  be 
established  only  by  more  striking  agreements  in  more  character- 
istic passages.  The  so-called  Itala  Question  does  not  present 
itself  in  connection  with  these  quotations.  In  only  one  case 
(31*2)  are  the  same  verses  recovered  from  two  sources.  In  one  of 
these  it  is  in  an  interpretation  and  not  in  a  quotation,  and  this 
may  well  account  for  the  slight  differences  found.  It  may  now  be 
stated  positively  that  the  text  already  established  must  be  con- 
sidered as  the  purest  text  of  the  Vulgate  of  Zephaniah  that  can 
be  obtained. 


1  Cf.  I7  sanctificavit  vocatos  suos;  I18  angulos  excelsos;  21  convenite,  congregamini; 
3*  in  Domini  non  est  confisa,  (et)  ad  Deum  suum  non  (ap)  adpropinquavit. 


16  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

§  VII.  No  more  emphatic  proof  of  the  high  esteem  in  which 
the  Vulgate  is  still  held  could  be  offered  than  the  fact  that 
modern  Catholic  scholarship  is  about  to  engage  in  the  stupendous 
task  of  a  new  revision  which  will,  when  completed,  be  the  crown- 
ing tribute  of  Latin  Christianity  to  St.  Jerome.1  Doubtless  the 
choiceness  of  its  diction  and  the  majesty  of  its  style  have  been 
largely  instrumental  in  raising  this  version  to  the  commanding 
position  which  it  has  so  long  occupied  in  the  Catholic  Church ; 
but  it  could  not  continue  to  usurp  the  place  of  the  inspired 
Hebrew  Old  Testament  so  entirely,  if  its  general  faithfulness  as  a 
translation  were  not  beyond  dispute.  In  Textual  Criticism, 
however,  accuracy  in  detail  is  the  measure  of  a  version's  value; 
and  entire  consistency  in  translation,  even  to  the  complete  subor- 
dination of  all  matters  of  style  and  diction,  is  the  translator's 
chief  virtue.  The  Latin  text  of  Zephaniah  reveals  frequent  con- 
flict beween  the  careful  translator  and  the  literary  artist.  Occa- 
sionally Jerome's  faithfulness  to  the  Hebrew  leads  him  to  do  vio- 
lence to  the  Latin  idiom  (lu  congregans  congregabo ;  211  adora- 
bunt  eum  vir  de  loco  suo).  More  frequently  he  is  satisfied  with 
an  ad  sensum  rendering  from  which  the  reading  of  his  exemplar 
could  never  be  recovered  without  the  help  of  the  Massoretic  Text 
(2T*  qui  remanserit  de  domo  Juda=mMV  JV3  rriKiy;  ibi=  orp1?;; ; 
3*  injuste  egerunt  cow£ra=iDon;  36  dum  non  est  qui  transeat= 
"131  y  ll?3D;  non  remanente  viro,  neque  ullo  habitatore=r#ft  ETK  sl?3D 
atfr  ;  37  omnia,  in  quibus  visitavi  eam=rrS;rrnpJD  "i^xSD;  317 
fortis^  ipse  salvabit=yw  113J).  His  translations  of  participles 
prove  him  a  firm  believer  in  the  principle  of  varietas  delectat 
(participle = participle  I4;  participle  with  article = participle  I12; 
participle  with  article = relative  clause  I12;  participle = relative 
clause  38;  participle = adjective  3s;  participle = noun  I18;  parti- 
ciple =  finite  independent  verb  I14;  cf.  further  214,  where  finite 
independent  verb = participle,  and  I4,  1",  25-6,  38,  where  3tfr  is  in 
each  case  differently  rendered).  Connectives  he  supplies  or 
omits  quite  arbitrarily  (I11,  I18,  21,  35'6,  39),  and  occasionally  he 
inserts  the  copula  (1s,  210,  215  eveniet).  Prepositions  are  for  the 


»  The  work  is  to  be  directed  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  F.  A.  Gasquet,  Abbot  President  of  the 
English  Benedictines.  The  many  uncatalogued  cathedral  libraries  of  Spain  and  Italy 
are  being  systematically  overhauled,  and  special  copies  of  the  Clementine  text  are  to  be 
printed  to  aid  in  the  work  of  collation. 


The  Vulgate.  17 

sake  of  variety  or  interpretatively  supplied,  omitted  or  changed 
(2a,  2%  33,  37,  316;  in  I8-4  he  seems  to  distinguish  between  Sj?D  and 
|D,  the  former  being  rendered  by  ab,  the  latter  by  de).  He 
sometimes  shows  a  very  accurate  knowledge  of  Hebrew  syntax 

(I8  et  erit visitabo^mpQi rrni ,  the  Septuagint  has 

Kai  «rrcH /cat  cKSiKijo-w ;  37  diluculo   surgentes   corruperunt= 

irrniyn  iD'Diyn).  In  matters  of  vocabulary  he  is,  however,  not  a 
safe  guide.  riDT  destroy  and  StfJ  pollute  were  unknown  to  him. 
Speciosam  in  213  is  due  rather  to  his  failure  to  understand  the 
passage  than  to  his  fondness  for  translating  proper  names  (cf.  ln, 
Pilae) ;  at  any  rate  his  etymology  of  Nineveh,  if  he  read  the 
word,  is  far-fetched.1  The  richness  of  his  Latin  vocabulary  is  of 
course  largely  responsible  for  his  lack  of  consistency  in  the  choice 
of  words.  For  almost  every  Hebrew  word  to  be  translated  there 
were  many  Latin  equivalents  and  near-equivalents  at  his  command. 
pS  is  rendered  in  the  Vulgate  Old  Testament  by  morari  (214),  com- 
morari,  demorari,  man  ere,  remanere,  permanere,  quiescere,  requi- 
escere,  habitare,  esse,  resider  effing  ere  tentoria,  dormire  (cf.  further 
*  4913,  5916,  Job  277,  II  Sam.  1216  for  less  accurate  or  mistaken  ren- 
derings). *\D33=porrigere,  par  are,  concupiscere,  desiderium  esse, 
amabilis  (21).  Within  Zephaniah  the  same  root  is  sometimes  trans- 
lated by  different  words  (216,  3",  314 ;  37,  311).  In  I3-4  'ivon  is  ren- 
dered by  disperdam ;  and  mjj  in  I11  is  very  properly  rendered  by  dis- 
perire,  which  is  the  regular  passive  of  disperdere  ;3  in  25,  however, 
disperdere  is  the  translation  of  T3KH,  which  in  2IS  is  rendered  by 
perdere,  and  in  27  mDJ  is  translated  by  perire.  Pertinent  illus- 
trations might  be  multiplied  almost  indefinitely,  but  enough  have 
been  given  to  indicate  Jerome's  general  habit  of  translation  and 
to  show  how  wide  are  the  limits  within  which  the  equation,  Vul- 
gate equals  Massoretic  Text,  may  with  entire  safety  be  allowed 
to  obtain.  The  readings  that  demand  more  special  consideration 
will  be  noted  later.  For  the  rest  of  the  text  it  can  be  shown  on 
the  basis  of  the  above  analysis  either  that  the  present  Hebrew 
and  the  Vulgate  agree,  or  that  proof  of  their  disagreement  is 
impossible. 


»  His  derivation  of  Nineveh  is  perhaps  based  on  some  Midrashic  interpretation.    He 
has  connected  mrj  with  n*O  or  HU,  cf.  Jer.  6"  and  Zeph.  2«. 
*  Cf.  Harper's  Latin  Dictionary  (Lewis  and  Short),  p.  592«. 


18  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 


CHAPTEE  II. 

THE  PESHITTA. 

§  I.  There  is  no  apparatus  criticus  for  the  study  of  the 
Peshitta  text  of  Zephaniah,  and  with  the  exception  of  Ceriani's 
photolithographic  reproduction  of  the  Cod.  Ambrosianus  no  man- 
uscripts are  available.  As  far  as  can  be  gathered  from  the 
scattered  and  incidental  notices  of  various  writers,  there  are  only 
a  few  old  Syriac  manuscripts  containing  this  book  in  the  libraries 
of  Europe.  That  there  are  none  in  Berlin  rests  on  the  authority 
of  Strack.  In  England  those  earlier  than  the  seventeenth  century 
are  British  Museum  Add.  14,432,  14,443  and  14,468  (I1'6) ;  Cam- 
bridge L.  e.  2.4,  Uni.  Add.  1965,  Buchanan  Bible.  In  lieu  of 
manuscripts  the  printed  editions,  of  which  there  are  five,  must  be 
used  to  establish  a  critical  apparatus  for  the  text.  Of  these  the 
Syriac  text  of  the  Paris  Polyglot  is  the  earliest  (1645).  This 
was  reproduced  in  Walton's  London  Polyglot  (1657),  and  again, 
but  without  vowels,  by  Lee  for  the  British  Bible  Society  (1821). 
A  Syriac  Bible  was  printed  in  Nestorian  characters  and  with 
Nestorian  vowels  by  American  missionaries  in  Urmiah  (1852). 
More  recently  the  Dominicans  of  Mosul  have  printed  a  text 
(1887-1892).  It  is  difficult  to  determine  the  critical  value  of 
these  editions.  P.  (=Paris  Polyglot),  W.  (= Walton's  Polyglot) 
and  L.  (=Lee's  text),  are  generally  allowed  to  count  as  only  one 
witness,  because  their  differences  are  either  misprints  or  improve- 
ments in  spelling.  That  L.  was  used  for  U.  (=Urmiah)  can  be 
deduced  from  the  text  itself.1  It  has  not  as  yet  been  made  certain 
whether  M.  (=Mosul)  has  independent  value  or  not,  because  those 
competent  to  judge  seem  to  have  been  unable  to  obtain  copies.2 
The  text  of  P.  is  known  to  have  been  taken  from  the  manuscript 
Syriaque  6  of  the  JBibliotheque  Nationale,  which  dates  from  the 
seventeenth  century.  As  a  manuscript  it  has  no  special  merit, 


1  Cf.  Nestle,  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  IV,  p.  651a. 

2  Cf.  Barnes,  An  Apparatus  Criticus  to  Chronicles  in  the  Peshitta  Version,  with  a 
Discussion  of  the  Value  of  the  Codex  Ambrosianus,  Introduction. 


The  Peshitta.  19 

and  it  seems  to  have  been  used  only  because  it  was  convenient  for 
the  printers  to  handle.  The  sixth  tome  of  Walton's  Polyglot 
(pp.  19  if.)  contains  a  collation  of  two  manuscripts,  Usher  and 
Pocock.  In  the  Prolegomena  to  this  work  (p.  1652)  it  is  stated 
that  Us.  (  =  Usher)  was  copied  "from  a  codex  of  the  Patriarch 
of  Antioch,"  who  is  the  head  of  the  Maronites.  In  all  likelihood 
this  was  an  old  codex  not  on  sale.  According  to  Barnes  (Journal 
of  Theological  Studies,  II,  p.  186),  Lee  had  access  to  the  Bu- 
chanan Bible  and  to  Cambridge  L.  e.  2.4,  and  it  may  therefore  be 
assumed  that  he  did  not  find  in  them  any  readings  which  seemed 
to  warrant  a  departure  from  the  London  Polyglot.  These  as  well 
as  Cod.  Ambrosianus  are  Jacobite  manuscripts.  If  manuscripts 
were  used  for  U.  and  M.,  they  were  undoubtedly  of  Nestorian 
and  Jacobite  or  Maronite  character  respectively.1  These  few 
facts  and  probabilities,  in  which  practically  all  that  is  known 
about  the  origin  of  these  texts  is  comprised,  can  in  themselves 
hardly  support  any  positive  conclusions  ;  but  in  the  light  of  the 
history  of  Syrian  Christianity  they  are  of  paramount  importance 
for  the  textual  criticism  of  the  Peshitta. 

§  II.  The  Peshitta  version  owes  its  survival  largely  to  the 
Christological  heresies  of  the  fifth  century.  After  the  Council 
of  Ephesus  (431)  the  followers  of  Nestorius  were  so  bitterly 
persecuted  by  their  Monophysitic  opponents  that  the  heresy 
taught  by  him  was  speedily  stamped  out  in  Italy  and  Greece. 
The  Oriental  Nestorians,  over  whom  the  ecclesiastical  control  of 
Rome  and  Constantinople  was  but  feeble  because  they  were  sep- 
arated both  by  language  and  character  from  the  Christians  of 
Europe,  maintained  their  peculiar  tenets  despite  all  opposition, 
and  Syria  became  virtually  a  theological  battle-ground.  The 
Monophy sites  were  victorious  because  of  the  powerful  advocacy 
of  Anastasius  and  Zeno,  and  they  succeeded  in  driving  the  Nes- 
torians  more  deeply  into  the  territory  of  the  Sassanian  kings  of 
Persia.  Since  the  Gospel  was  first  preached  within  their  king- 
dom, these  kings  had  watched  with  suspicion  the  "aliens  who 
had  embraced  the  religion,  and  who  might  favor  the  cause,  of 
the  hereditary  foes  of  their  realm;"2  but  now  that  they  were 


1  Rahlfs  made  the  assumption  that  Nestorian  manuscripts  were  used  by  the  American 
missionaries  (Beltrage  zur  Textkritik  der  Peschita,  Z.A.T.W.,  1889,  pp.  161  ff.). 
a  Cf.  Gibbon,  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  XLVII. 


20  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

rebels  against  the  Roman  Empire  and  fugitives  from  Roman 
jurisdiction,  they  were  eagerly  welcomed,  and  in  the  year  483  or 
4841  at  the  Synod  of  Beth  Lapat  Nestorianism  was  officially 
adopted  as  its  confession  of  faith  by  the  Christian  Church  in 
Persia.  The  Monophysites  were  themselves  anathematized  by 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (451),  and  the  same  influence  of  lan- 
guage and  character  operated  to  perpetuate  this  heresy  in  Syria. 
They  were  in  turn  harassed  by  the  Nestorians,  for  whom  apparent 
defeat  had  become  a  triumph  through  the  powerful  allies  gained, 
and  their  ecclesiastical  organization  was  accomplished  only  with 
the  greatest  difficulty  by  Jacob  Baradaeus,  from  whom  they 
obtained  the  name  of  Jacobites.  The  odium  theologicum  thus 
kindled  between  Nestorians  and  Jacobites  has  never  ceased  to 
burn.  Toward  the  close  of  the  following  century  many  of  the 
Syrian  Christians  who  had  escaped  both  Nestorianism  and  Mono- 
physitism  and  who  were  called  Melkites  because  of  their  loyalty 
to  the  Empire,  were  wrecked  on  the  rock  of  Monothelitism  ;  and 
a  third  sect  resulted  whose  members  are  called  Maronites.  They 
never  became  entirely  free  from  Roman  influence  and  were  finally 
brought  back  into  the  Church,  when  certain  minor  concessions  of 
ritual  and  clerical  privilege  were  made  by  the  Papacy. 

§  III.  The  Peshitta  remained  the  official  version  of  Scripture 
for  these  three  sects  ;  and  though  Arabic  or  Persian  became 
their  vernacular  after  the  Mohammedan  conquest,  the  Bible  con- 
tinued to  be  read  in  the  sacred  language.  Their  common  accept- 
ance of  the  Peshitta  in  spite  of  their  lasting  hostility  to  each 
other  amounts  to  proof  positive  that  the  Peshitta  antedates  the 
schisms  which  separated  them;  and  the  schisms,  in  that  they 
would  tend  to  produce  three  distinct  lines  of  transmission,  give 
to  Textual  Criticism  its  only  means  of  determining  an  ancient  text. 

(A.)  Where  all  the  authorities  agree,  it  may  be  safely  affirmed 
that  the  text  is  older  than  the  last  quarter  of  the  fifth  century. 

(B.)  Am.  (^Ambrosianus)  and  Us.  together  establish  the 
West-Syrian  reading,  for  one  is  Jacobite  and  the  other  Maronite. 

(C.)  If  U.  contains  any  distinctly  Nestorian  readings,  they 
ought  to  be  easily  recognized  because  they  stand  alone. 


1  Cf.  Noldeke,  Aufsatze  zur  persischen  Geschichte,  p.  107. 


The  Peshitta.  21 

(D.)  In  the  absence  of  more  positive  criteria  U.  may  be 
allowed  to  decide  between  West-Syrian  readings.  These  vaguely 
general  and  by  no  means  absolute  rules,1  aided  here  and  there  by 
the  scholia  of  Bar  Hebraeus  and  the  quotations  of  other  writers, 
must  in  the  absence  of  anything  better  fix  this  important  text  for 
the  entire  fifteen  centuries  or  more  of  its  existence.  Though 
Assemani,  himself  a  Syrian,  has  written  a  tome  of  950  pages 
concerning  Syrian  Christianity,2  he  throws  little  light  on  the 
history  of  the  Peshitta  as  such ;  and  little  more  is  now  known  of 
its  origin3  than  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  seems  to  have  known 
when  he  wrote  : 

fjpfjirivcvTai  8e  ravra  ets  fJ^v  rrjv  r<av  Svpon/  Trap'  OTOV  S^TTOTC,  ovBe  yap 
lyvaKTTai  /u-e'xpt  TT/S  riy/xepov  ocrns  -TTOTC  OVTOS  eoTtv. 4 

§IV.  The  following  is  a  collation  of  P.,  W.,  Us.,  Po.  (  = 
Pococl$),  U.,  M.  and  Am.  with  L. :  I8*  ^ *  *  ^\ — Am. 

I9*  .cov^Jf^o po>  .oouaJj^ao .      I11*  . ^V  ft  ^     Ain    "" ^"  *  A  .      I11* 

—Am.  *oZ?.  I12  P— Am.  Us.*  P?.  I15*  l?co??_Am.  fecofo.  I15* 
|J^I— P.  P^l.  I17*  U  1*1 -—Am.  UJ]  ^1^.  I18*  gold  and 
silver— Am.  silver  and  gold.  22*  Pr^o(3)— U.  M.  Pr^ .  29-10-13-14-16* 
"^-4.1^0-.] — U".  M.  omit  both  alephs,  Am.  omits  the  first.  29*  U^»» — 
Am.  tt^X  2n*  ^X^l— U.  ^X1!?.  212  Am.  vc£JJ  additional. 
(37-8  break  in  Am.)  311  ^-r-«— Am.  U.* 
U.  M.  *-^.  317*  h^r^— M.  ^r^.  319 
-M.  U.  Us.  Am.  *vociZZoi^?  \±i]  oi^as.  320  jy[  jj. 
Us.  Am.  add  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  *  ^a-»^-»l  001  U^^  ouo . 
3'°  VOOUJL^^_U.  M.  Am.  *  vooi-J.^ . 

The  readings  to  be  preferred  according  to  the  rules  formulated 
above  have  been  starred.  With  one  exception  the  variants  are 
of  no  importance,  consisting  either  in  omissions  and  additions  of 
®,  ?,  and  ^»,  or  in  differences  of  spelling.  In  319-20  the  collation  gives 
a  reading  which  commends  itself  as  original.  The  text  obtained 
from  these  different  lines  of  transmission  contains  inner-Syraic 
corruptions,  and  these  must  therefore  be  very  early.  In  I9  Po. 


1  The  rules  here  formulated  agree  substantially  with  those  given  by  Rahlfs  (Z.A.T.W., 
1889,  pp.  161-210) ,  though  much  less  positively  stated. 

2  Assemani,  Bibliolheca  Orientalis,  IV. 

3  Cf.  Berg,  The  Influence  of  the Septuagint  upon  the  Peshitta  Psalter,  New  York,  1895. 
«  Cf.  Migne,  Patrologia  Graeca,  LXVI,  p.  241. 


22  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 


has  corrected  one  of  these  by  reading  sf01  ^i^  for  ^pqi  *  i,  SP  .     The 

others  are  l^*-  for  i^^  (211)  ;  IH^  (pointed  Ij^  in  W.)  for  1-=^ 
(214,  cf.  Brockelmanrf  s  Lexicon  Syriacum,  p.  258b,  and  Ez. 
173.-^.  ^0,  for  )^oi  (3«?  cf.  i"). 

§  V.  Bar  Hebraeus  cites  Zephaniah  in  the  following  verses, 
quoting  at  most  a  clause  though  generally  only  a  word:1  I1,  I2, 
I3-3-3-3,  I8,  I10'10,  I11-11,  I17,  27-7,  212,  213,  214-14,"  215,  34,  35,  39,  315.  In 
I11  one  of  the  three  codices  collated  by  Moritz  agrees  with  Am. 
in  omitting  the  final  o  of  cjoZ?  .  Jn  27,  where  the  editions  all  have 
]  *v>i^>?  Bar  Hebraeus  seems  to  have  read  i-^-»  i-aurs  (in  ripa 
maris).  This  may  be  an  explanation  of  the  geographical  location 
of  Askalon;  some  connection  with  the  S^n  of  25-6'7  is  not  unlikely. 
The  remainder  of  his  citations  agree  with  the  text  of  the  editions. 
The  scholia  have  no  textual  value,  being  either  on  the  vocaliza- 
tion of  words  or  of  an  interpretative  character.  Quotations  of 
Zephaniah  must  be  exceedingly  rare  in  early  Syriac  religious 
literature,  because  a  patient  search  of  many  indices  and  footnotes 
yielded  only  a  few  allusions  to  Zephaniah  by  Ephraem  Syrus  in 
his  poetical  Homilies,  and  two  partial  quotations  of  the  same  verse 
(39)  by  Aphraates,  in  which  he  does  not  differ  from  the  accepted 
text.2 

§  VI.  The  translation  of  Zephaniah,  while  literal,  is  not 
slavish,  and  its  style  is  smooth  and  flowing.  The  similarity  of 
Hebrew  and  Syriac  in  idiom  and  vocabulary  was  evidently  of 
great  help  to  the  translator  ;  but  still  the  Peshitta,  as  the  Vulgate, 
falls  far  short  of  that  accuracy  of  detail  and  consistency  in 
translation  which  gives  a  version  its  chief  value  for  Textual 
Criticism.  The  data  which  show  the  general  character  of  the 
translation,  and  which  thus,  though  of  little  or  no  importance  per  se, 
indicate  where  possible  variants  may  be  looked  for  and  where  not, 
may  be  at  once  collected  and  dismissed  from  further  considera- 
tion.3 


1  Cf.  Moritz,   Oregorii  Bar  Hebraei  in  Duodecim  Prophetas  Minores    Scholia, 
Leipzig,  1882. 

2  It  was  impossible  to  find  out  whether  the  recension  of  Jacob  of  Edessa  made  in  704-5 
was  still  extant;  cf.  Swete,  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  in  Greek,  p.  116,  n.  4;  and 
Ryssel,  Untersuchungen  uber  die  Textgestalt  und  die  Echtheit  des  Buches  Micha, 
p.  173. 

s  Cf.  Introduction;  the  Syriac  readings  are  always  mentioned  first.  The  plus  and 
minus  of  the  Peshitta  in  regard  to  Vau  are  not  noted;  it  is  added  about  forty  times  and 
not  once  omitted. 


/  Of   THE 

I    UNIVERSITY 

V        or 

'"•"fa*  Peshitta.  23 

I*  |  *1  *1^— ma  (always  except  in  Ez.).  I4  ?  additional  (name  of 
the  Chemarim  with  the  priests = name  of  the  Chemarim  with  that 
of  the  priests).  !6Va  (2)  additional.  T  Part.  =  part,  and  looi 
(cf.  la,  35,  part.^impf.).  l6^  (2)  additional.  I6  ^  ^<*  =  :DJ 
nnKD  (cf.  Is.  5913).  I7  U°r*  1r^=ni7V  ^1N  (only  in  the  Minor 
Prophets  and  Ez.).  I7  0=0  (cf.  320,  «few).  I7  ^iol=anpn  (cf. 
Jer.  123).  I8  Part.=part.  and  looi  with  ?  (cf.  215).  I11  ^^o^= 
(of.  31,  <Jo-)«  ^  ^  •*'  additional.  lia  U^tt1?!.  I14 

^r^  eoi  U£U£-D  J.  «i  V>>  1-05  oi^oo*  ooi  uOu^O=VtJFI  mns  DV  D'lp 
a^ip  (the  changes  here  are  for  the  sake  of  clearness). 
1"  1M=ni3^  (cf.  118=1>^05).  I17  Impf.  with  ?=i  consecutive 
with  perf.  I18  Gold  and  silver = silver  and  gold  (cf.  Am.).  I18 
jj^ajoo  ^a^?  ^nSnaj  ]K  n^D  (this  is  perhaps  a  good  interpretation, 
but  not  a  very  exact  translation,  cf.  I9  ll®"^®  ^aok-»  ^offiXs— ^ 
jnsDn^^nn).  I18  Part.=impf.  24  vor^P  ?i-*'l3=ni»nnE;K  .  26 
Part,  with  ^  — part,  construct.  29  ^^  i-^-^i?  5®^=^  Vn. 
29  looLi  additional.  29'5^-lria-'i^^  additional.  211  ^o^o^^nSK  (for 
theological  reasons).  212  minus  suffix  and  HDH  .  214  l^aiQ^j  Ueu^ 
=su  in^n .  214  J?i  its  houses =in  its  capitals.  214  01Q-^— j^na  .  216 
jua^j?  ^SnSizziaijy  SD  .  215  o»io£J  and  i^opo  additional  (due  to  the 
fact  that  the  following  verses  were  referred  to  Nineveh).  31 
I&JL^  additional  (interpretative).  31  ^a*-=n:rn  (this  is  read  as 
the  name  of  the  prophet  because  of  the  interpretation  just  men- 
tioned [216J;  the  order  of  the  words  is  changed  for  the  same 
reason).  32  ?  additional.  35  V  ^  13a^°=l?ij;  jnr  *6i .  36  AS^««4 
=1D27J.  36  Part,  with  ?=part.  36  -^>  ^o="l?aD  =  pKO  (cf.  26). 

37  ?=!jK .     37  ^^^  additional  (interpretative).    37  j^j^cVa— nty«  ^3. 

38  p]  ^0^05— ^Dip.      38   ^^°  additional   (this  verb  is    inserted  to 
guard  against  ambiguity).      38  h-^=Djfl=a«|H  (cf.  I16).     39  ^-r-<no 
=  m^3  (cf.   3n=T^i-<n).     39  ?  withimpf.=inf.  of   purpose    (2). 
310  Shall  bring  to  me  offerings  —  shall  bring  my  offerings.     311 

aipD    (cf.    317,   ^a-^  =  ^a")pa).      3 
(cf.  27).     315  **u*  additional  (cf.  37).     316 

=  |ry  .  3"  V°°r*° ^^=^2^  "^^  •  318 
!j13j;D  SD  (it  is  unnecessary  to  suppose  that  D^D  was  read). 
320  ooi  additional  (cf .  I14'16).  320  Impf.  =inf .  with  suffix.  320  ?  l^ 
with  part,  and  pronoun  subject^inf.  with  suffix. 


24  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

It  is  evident  from  this  collection  of  "peculiarities"  that  the 
motive  of  the  Peshitta  translator  was  religious  rather  than 
scholarly,  and  that  he  desired  to  make  a  readable  rather  than  an 
exact  translation.  He  much  preferred  expansion  to  condensation. 
Interpretative  additions,  especially  in  places  where  the  style  of 
the  Hebrew  is  concise  or  elliptical,  are  not  infrequent  (215,  31,  37, 
38).  There  is  a  marked  preference  for  long  sentences,  and  these 
are  formed  by  adding  connective  particles  (passim).  Pronouns 
are  both  supplied  and  omitted  (212,  311).  Interpretations  and 
paraphrases  are  occasionally  found  (I4,  I9,  I18).  There  is  at  least 
one  change  for  theological  reasons  (211).  A  word  denoting  a 
general  conception  is  sometimes  substituted  for  one  that  denotes 
a  particular  part  of  the  conception  (214).  A  plural  is  often  used 
to  render  a  collective  (I3,  214).  Minor  changes  of  order,  the 
reason  for  which  is  not  clear,  also  occur  (I18,  38).  Gross  ignorance 
of  Hebrew  syntax  and  vocabulary  cannot  be  laid  to  his  charge 
(cf.,  however,  1",  31).  Ryssel's  general  estimate  of  the  Peshitta 
of  Micah1  will  serve  equally  well  for  that  of  Zephaniah.  His 
words  are : — Fassen  wir  .  .  .  unser  Urtheil  tlber  den  Syrer  zusam- 
men,  so  muss  die  grosse  formelle  Gewandtheid  anerkannt  werden, 
mit  welcher  er  die  Gedanken  des  hebr.  Textes  ins  Syrische 
tiberzutragen  versteht,  und  der  leichte,  fltissige  Stil,  in  dem  alle 
Unebenheiten  des  Ausdrucks  beseitigt  sind;  dabei  schreibt  er 
korrekt  und  vermeidet  deshalb  meist  Hebraismen. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  SEPTUAGINT. 

§  I.  For  many  centuries  after  its  origin  the  Septuagint  was 
a  potent  religious  force,  first  among  Hellenized  Jews  and  later 
more  especially  among  Christians.  Its  importance  is  shown  by 
the  translations  of  Aquila,  Symmachus  and  Theodotian  indirectly,2 
and  directly  by  Origen's  Hexapla  and  the  recensions  of  Hesychius 
and  Lucian.  Through  the  gradual  ascendancy  of  Rome,  its  place 


1  Ryssel,  Untersuchungen  uber  die  Textgestalt  und  die  Echtheitdes  Buches  Micha, 
p.  171. 

•  It  is  generally  agreed  that  these  translations  were  made  in  antagonism  either  to  the 
Septuagint  or  to  each  other. 


The  Septuagint.  25 

was,  however,  more  and  more  usurped  by  the  Vulgate,  and  its 
direct  religious  influence  continued  only  in  the  many  secondary 
versions  that  were  based  on  it.1  During  this  time  through  the 
mixture  and  conflation  of  recensions  and  translations — a  process 
which  was  much  facilitated  by  the  lazy  and  ignorant  use  of 
Origen's  Hexaplaric  Septuagint — the  text  of  the  manuscripts  be- 
came exceedingly  corrupt.  Humanism  in  its  passionate  love  for 
the  literature  of  Occidental  antiquity,  and  the  Protestant  Reforma- 
tion in  that  it  rejected  the  authority  of  the  Vulgate  while  its 
formal  principle  demanded  an  authoritative  Scripture,  combined  to 
revive  a  critical  interest  in  the  Septuagint  which  has  been  steadily 
growing;  but  it  has  long  ceased  to  undergo  recension  for  religious 
motives,  and  the  printing-press  has  checked  all  further  corruption 
by  eclectic  manuscript  transmission.  The  history  of  the  Septua- 
gint thus  falls  into  two  general  epochs,  which  may  be  called  the 
Epoch  of  Construction  and  the  Epoch  of  Reconstruction.  Between 
these  lies  the  period  of  manuscript  transmission  in  which  the 
second  epoch  must  find  its  material  with  which  to  work.  Many 
editions  of  the  Septuagint  have  appeared,  but  the  process  of 
reconstruction  is  still  far  from  complete.2  The  great  problem  is 
to  recover  the  pre-Hexaplaric  (pre-Origenic)  text;  but  this  can 
be  obtained  only  after  the  Hexaplaric,  Hesychian  and  Lucianic 
texts,  which  lie  confused  together  in  the  manuscripts,  have  been 
separated  from  each  other.  The  three  types  thus  obtained  would, 
after  the  recensional  elements  of  each  had  been  removed,  represent 
the  texts  current  in  Palestine,  Egypt  and  Syria  in  the  early  and 
late  third  century,  and  their  collation  would  yield  a  very  early 
Greek  text.  Along  these  lines  comparatively  little  has  as  yet 
been  done.3  The  extant  Hexaplaric  fragments  have  been  collected 


1  In  the  East,  where  it  is  still  recited  by  the\Orthodox  Church  in  the  Ecclesiastical 
Offices,  it  lost  much  of  its  influence  over  the  thought  and  life  of  the  people. — Swete» 
Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  in  Greek,  p.  433. 

2  As  many  as  sixty-three  editions  and  reprints  between  the  Complutensian  text  and 
that  of  the  larger  Cambridge  Septuagint  (now  in  preparation)  are  enumerated  by  Nestle 
and  Swete.    The  editions  from  which  the  reprints  have  been  made  are  he  Complutensian 
(4),  the  Aldine  (6),  the  Sixtine  (45)  and  the  Alexandrian  [Grabian]  (5).    The  Cambridge 
Manual  Septuagint  completes  a  total  of  sixty-five.    There  are  also  several  facsimile  and 
photolithographic  editions  of  manuscripts,  but  these  are  not  generally  accessible.    Many 
editions  of  single  books  or  groups  of  books  have  appeared;  the  text  of  Zephaniah  seems 
never  to  have  been  separately  published. 

3  The  larger  Cambridge  Septuagint  will  when  completed  be  valuable  mainly  for  its 
critical  apparatus,  for  in  its  text  it  will  but  repeat  the  Manual  Septuagint  text  of  Codex  B. 


26  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

by  Field  in  his  Hexapla  Origenis,  but  the  text  is  not  restored  in 
a  connected  form.  Lagarde  began  the  reconstruction  of  a  pro- 
visional Lucianic  text,  but  only  one  volume  of  his  work  appeared 
before  his  death.1  The  Hesychian  recension  has  not  yet  been  so 
much  as  definitely  identified.2  The  collations  of  H.  P.  (=  Vetus 
Testamentum  G-raecum,  cum  variis  Lectionibtis,  ed.  Robertus 
Holmes  [  .  .  .  editionem  a  Roberto  Holmes  inchoatarn  continuavit 
Jacobus  Parsons],  Oxford,  1798-1827),  and  S.  (=  Cambridge 
Manual  Septuagint,  The  Old  Testament  in  Greek  according  to 
the  Septuagint,  H.  B.  Swete,  1887-1894,  21895-1899)  contain 
practically  all  the  evidence  of  manuscripts  and  editions ;  but  the 
former  has  been  severely  criticised  on  the  score  both  of  accuracy 
and  arrangement,3  while  the  latter  contains  the  variations  of  only 
the  important  uncials. 

§  II.  The  pre-Hexaplaric  text  of  Zephaniah  cannot  thus  be 
directly  and  positively  established;  indirectly  something  may, 
however,  be  done.  In  the  apparatus  criticus  resulting  from  the 
combination  of  H.  P.  and  S.  there  are  numerous  itacistic  and 
sporadic  readings  which  are  easily  recognized  as  such.  Many 
rival  readings,  having  good  manuscript  support,  in  regard  to 
which  nothing  positive  can  be  determined  because  of  their  nature, 
are  also  to  be  found;  but  since  Cod.  B.  (=Vaticanus)  on  the 
whole  presents  the  version  in  its  oldest  form,  the  balance  of 
probability  is  in  its  favor  in  these  cases.  There  are,  however, 
several  pronounced  variations  from  B.  and  its  supporters — B.  of 


1  Cf.  Lagarde,  Symmicta,  II,  pp.  137-148. 

2  To  what  extent  the  Hesychian  recension  is  still  accessible  in  manuscripts  and 
versions  of  the  Septuagint  is  uncertain — Swete.     Field  made  no  mention  of  it  in  the 
Introduction  to  his  Hexapla,  although  he  discussed  Lucian  and  his  work  extensively. 
Ceriani  made  the  claim  that  the  Codex  Marchalianus  (Q.,  XII)  of  the  Prophets  agrees 
very  closely  with  the  text  presupposed  in  the  Egyptian  versions  and  in  the  works  of 
Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  that  it  is  supported  by  26, 109, 198  and  306.  According  to  Tischen- 
dorf  this  codex  belongs  to  the  recension  of  Eusebius  and  Pamphilus,  i.  e. ,  it  Is  Hexa- 
plaric.    The  Hesychian  group  in  Ezekiel  according  to  Cornill  is  49,  68,  87,  90,  91,  228,  238. 
Lagarde  and  Cornill  thought  that  this  recension  was  to  be  sought  in  the  Aldina  edition, 
which  generally  follows  68  even  in  its  mistakes;  but  Stekhoven  claimed  that  the  Complu- 
tensian  text  in  the  Minor  Prophets  agrees  with  40,  a  manuscript  which  is  closely  related 
to  the  text  used  by  Cyril  of  Alexandria  and  therefore  to  Hesychius.    Grabe  found  the 
recension  in  Codex  B.    For  the  remaining  books  of  the  Old  Testament  (i.  e.,  with  the 
exception  of  the  Prophets)  we  have  as  yet  no  published  list  of  manuscripts  containing 
a  probable  Hesychian  text— Swete. 

3  A  complete  stemma  exhibiting  the  filiations  of  these  manuscripts  and  recensions 
cannot  be  made  from  the  collations  of  H.  P.— Moore,  Judges,  p.  14. 


The  Septuagint.  27 

course  represents  all  manuscripts  not  cited  as  differing  from  it,  at 
least  in  so  far  as  the  collations  are  dependable, — which  are  of  such 
a  character  that  either  they  or  the  readings  of  B.  from  which 
they  differ  must  be  due  to  the  recensions ;  and  for  the  attribution 
of  at  least  some  of  these  more  or  less  positive  criteria  are  available. 
The  critical  notes  in  the  margin  and  text  of  the  Syro-Hexapla  in 
some  cases  indicate  a  choice,  and  in  others  a  reading  is  shown  to 
be  due  to  Lucian  by  the  known  characteristics  of  his  work.  The 
fragments  of  Origen's  Hexapla  (fifth  column)  collected  by  Field, 
the  Syro-Hexaplaric  version  and  the  Old  Latin  fragments  can  also 
here  and  there  be  used  as  a  test.  The  text  of  B.,  thus  confirmed 
or  corrected  as  the  case  may  be  by  the  available  evidence,  may  be 
accepted  as  original.  Although  many  elements  of  uncertainty 
must  remain  in  a  text  thus  established,  these  will  be  in  matters  of 
detail  which  are  of  importance  mainly  for  the  editor  of  a  critical 
edition,  and  which  do  not  materially  affect  the  use  of  the  version 
for  Old  Testament  Textual  Criticism. 

§111.     The  Greek  manuscripts  of  Zephaniah  contained  in  the 
collations  are  the  following: — 

SYMBOL.  NAME.  DATE. 

A.  (III.)  Alexandrinus.  V. 

K.  Sinaiticus.  IV. 

Q.  (XII.)  Marchalianus.  VI. 

V.  (23.)  Venetus.  VIII. 

T.  Cryptoferratensis.  IX. 

22.  British  Museum  Reg.  1,  B.  2.          XII. 

26.  Vat.  Gr.  556.  XI. 

36.  Vat.  Gr.  347.  XIII. 

40.  Dorotheus  Moldaviens.  XII. 

42.  Demetrius  Moldaviens.  XII. 

49.  Laur.  XI.  4.  XI. 

51.  Laur.  X.  8.  XI. 

62.  Ox.  New  Coll.  XIII. 

68.  St.  Mark's,  Gr.  5.  XV. 

86.  Barber  V.  45.  X. 

87.  Chigi  2.  IX. 
91.  Vat.  Ottob.  Gr.  452.  XI. 
95.  Vindobon,  Th.  Gr.  163.  ? 
97.  Vat.  Gr.  1153.  X. 

106.  Bibl.  Comm.  Gr.  187,  Ferrara.        XV. 

114.  Evora,  Carthus.  2.  ? 


28  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

SYMBOL.  NAME.  DATE. 

131. 1  Vindobon,  Th.  Gr.  23.  XII 

147.  Ox.,  Bodl.  Laur.  30.  ? 

153.  Vat.  Gr.  273.  X. 

185.  Vindobon,  Th.  Gr.  18.  XI. 

198.  Paris,  Nat.  Gr.  14.  IX. 

228.  Vat.  Gr.  1764.  XIII. 

233.  Vat.  Gr.  2067.  XII. 

238.  Vat.  Gr.  1153.  IX. 

239.  St.  Salvator  Bonon.  641.  XI. 

240.  Laur.  VI.  22.  XIII. 

310.  Mosq.  Syn.  209.  XI. 

311.  Mosq.  Syn.  341.  XI. 

§  IV.  Approximately  500  different  readings  are  noted  in  H.  P. 
and  S.  (a)  To  this  total  K*  has  contributed  a  large  number. 
He  seems  to  have  been  a  very  poor  copyist,  as  the  following 
specimens  of  his  work  will  show: — I3  yx^ves  (t^vcs),  I4  ^tpa  (^et/oa), 
I15  ras  TrdXts,  210  TravTO/cpdro/aav,  33  lire\L(f>Or)O-av.  (£>)  Evident  cor- 
ruptions of  all  kinds  abound: — I12  dya&OTronJo-ei  (dya^OTroi^o-r;),  I14 
Taxwv)  and  raxvvr)  (ra^eux),  24  SieaTracr/xoo^and  Biecnrap/^evr) 
25  K/OITWI/  (KpryTwv),  27  KaraXvTrots  (KaraXotVots) ,  38  e^e'Xcn 
36  KarcWa  (/carcWao-a).  (c)  The  sporadic  readings  of  single  or  of 
related  manuscripts  are  numerous : — spelling,  'lov&W  ('lovSa) ;  mood, 
I7  €vXa/?eicr0at  (evXa/?e«r0e)  ;  tense,  1s  eKXeiTrera)  (eKXiTreVa))  ;  number, 
3B  avraij/  (avr^s),  I3  eKXtTreroxrav  (e/cXiTreTco)  ;  person  21  i)/xas  (v/xas), 
36  e^cpTyttaxrav  (c^epry/xwo-w)  ;  case,  I6  Sw/xcuri  (Sw/xara)  ;  preposition,  I10 
OTTO  (cTrt'),  I10  eKKevTowTwv  (aTTo/cevTowTcov) ,  22  eX^etv  (cTTcX^etv)  ;  syno- 
nyms, I16  tcr^vpds  (o^vpds),  dSt/cuxs  and  dvo/xoxs  (dcreySetixs)  ;  words  of 
similar  appearance,  312  TroXw  (TT/DCIVI/),  36  tixfrOrjcrav  (rj^avLcrO^a-av) , 
3"  Trpovxy?  (TT/OOO-^S);  additions,  I4  ev  (before  Jerusalem),  32  <rov; 
omissions,  I1  6s:  homoioteleutonic,  29  /xe'w?  to  /xeviy;  dittography, 

I4   €7Tt  *IOV&XV  Kttt   €7Ti  *Iov8aV    (€7Tt  'lovStt   Kttt'). 

§  V.  Between  a  large  number  of  rival  readings  which  both  have 
good  manuscript  support,  decision  must,  as  has  already  been  sug- 
gested, be  arbitrary.  I4  icpoiv — tepeW.  I7  ^roe/xaKe — ^Toi/xa<re.  I10 
«v  rrj  T7/A€pa  CKUVT) — ev  €Kf.cvy  ry  -jy/xe/oa.  I11  Oprjvrja-aTe. — OpyvtiTt.  I13 
ov  xi^|  KaroiKr](TOv<rw — ov  /x^  Karot/CT/crowrtv.  I14  ^  ^xupa — ly/xepa.  I18 
([i/Xov — £iyXovs.  24  'AaKaXcov — 'AcTKaXcov  €<rrat.  28 


1 130  and  131  is  the  same  manuscript.    It  is  by  Lagarde  assigned  to  the  thirteenth 
century  (cf.  Z.A.T.W.,  1908,  p.  11).    238  is  said  to  be  a  copy  of  87. 


The  Septuagint.  29 


211  €7ri^>av7/o-CTat  —  em^av^s  efrrat  (cf.  Joel  211'31,  Hab.  I7).  3a  OVK  — 
ovSe.  34  01  icpcis  —  tepcis.  36  &o8eveo-0ai,  —  SioSeveiv.  38  8ta  —  Trapa.  It 
is  with  equivalents  of  which  these  are  representative  that  the 
elusive  Hesychian  recension  may  sometime  be  connected,  unless 
indeed  the  view  that  it  was  a  new  version  now  lost  ultimately 
prevail.1  Comparatively  few  variants  remain,  after  B's  readings 
have  been  accepted  in  all  the  cases  that  belong  to  this  class. 

§  VI.  Lucian  had  a  double  purpose  in  revising  the  Septuagint 
text.  He  wished  to  improve  its  Greek  and  at  the  same  time  make  it 
conform  more  nearly  to  the  original.  His  reverence  for  the  Sep- 
tuagint sometimes  led  him  to  place  two  translations  side  by  side. 
In  supplying  lacunae  he  made  use  of  the  translations  of  Aquila, 
Symmachus,  and  Theodotian.  His  text  also  has  interpolations  that 
serve  only  to  indicate  the  nexus  of  the  thought  or  to  make  an  obscure 
passage  clearer.  He  seems  to  have  allowed  himself  to  introduce 
only  minor  changes  for  the  sake  of  better  Greek.  An  occasional 
removal  of  stiffness  by  a  slight  change  of  construction,  and  the  sub- 
stitution of  a  singular  for  a  plural  predicate  with  a  neuter  subject, 
of  a  more  familar  word  or  form  for  one  less  familar,  of  one  com- 
pound verb  for  another,  and  of  a  simple  for  a  compound  verb  or 
vice  versa,  as  far  as  now  known,  mark  the  extent  of  his  literary 
revision.  It  is  evident  that  there  are  no  absolute  criteria  for 
detecting  his  merely  literary  changes,  and  therefore  many  variants 
of  which  one  or  the  other  is  perhaps  due  to  him  belong  to  the 
class  of  which  illustrations  have  already  been  given.  (§  V.)  Cor- 
rections according  to  the  Hebrew  and  interpretative  additions 
may,  however,  be  identified  with  more  or  less  certainty.  Accord- 
ing to  Stekhoven  the  following  readings  are  Lucianic:  —  la  iravra 
additional;  I3  TO.  trKavSaAa  o-vv  rots  dcre/Jecrtv;  I4  TO>V  )8aa\€t/w.,  /u-era  ran/ 
tepetov  additional;  I6  Kara  TOV  Mc'X^o/x;  I12  TOVS  Aeyovras;  I17  €KX«D; 
2a  ^/xcpas  additional  ;  2s  ^T^crare  SiKawxrw^v  ^TT/crare  irpaor-qra  Kat 

vra;  213  ve/XTycrcrat  ;  215  eycvcro;  3s  \€\vTpo)fJi€vrj  ;  31* 
320  ov  additional.  To  these  may  be  added:  I1  eyeVero; 
I18  Svv^rai;  213  €KT€vu>,  fjioV)  airoXu*,  6rf<T<^\  34  eis  TOV  vo/u,ov;  37  ctTrov, 
8u<£0apT<u;  313  ov  /txij.  There  are  also  two  readings  from  the  other 
Greek  versions  which  may  have  been  introduced  by  Lucian:  I16 

Aquila;    38  eye/oo-e'ws  pov  cuwvuxs,  Symmachus.     These 


Nova  potius  versio  quam  '  Septuagintae '  interpretum  dicenda—Gr&be. 


30  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

readings,  none  of  which  are  to  be  found  in  B.,  must  all  be  rejected 
as  recensional;  they  give  no  indication  as  to  the  nature  of  Lucian's 
Hebrew  text. 

§  VII.  (a).  In  its  text  and  margin  the  Syro-Hexapla  has  a  few 
important  critical  notes: — I4  */x€ra  TWV  lepeW.  I5*  *at  TOV?  Trpoo-- 
(margin) ;  22  *  yuepa  (note ;  hoc  ex  reliquis) ,  *  Trpo  TOV 
<£'  v/xas  ^/xepav  6vfj.ov  Kvptou;  27-j-r^s  ^aXa(r<r>ys,  -r-  'lovSa1 ; 
36  *  cts  <£ws  Kat  OVK  aTreKpvftfj  Kat  OVK  eyvto  doW'av  cv  aTratTTyo'et  (margin)  ; 
36-r-KaT€O"7ra<ra  VTrep^aVovs  fi<f>avi(T0r)<raVy  310  *  TrpocrSe^o^tat  ei/ 8te<T7rap- 
/xe'vots  fte  (margin) ;  314  0vyarep;  -4-Aeyet  Kvptos.  (5)  From  the  text 
of  the  Syro-Hexapla  additional  data  may  be  gathered: — I7  Kat 
omitted  before  ^yta/ce;  I9  «rt  Travras  additional,  ®cov  omitted;  I11 
Kat  before  tguXoOpevOrjo-av  omitted;  I16  the  order  of  words  is  O-KOTOVS 
Kat  yvo<£ov;  22  Ovpov  additional;  214  Kat  before  KopaKcs  omitted;  36 
the  order  is  Kpt/ua  avrov  Swo-et,  VIKOS  for  VCIKOS;  38  Tr)v  opyirjv  fjtov  -jrao-av 
opyyv  Ovfjiov  /xov  was  read ;  vTroXeti^o/xat  for  vTroXiy^o/xat.  (c)  Field's 
fragments  of  the  fifth  column  of  the  Hexapla,  in  so  far  as  they 
were  not  derived  from  the  Syro-Hexapla,  were  obtained  from 
Codd.  86  and  Q,  and  from  the  commentaries  of  Jerome,  Theo- 
dore of  Mopsuestia  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria  on  the  Minor 
Prophets.  Some  have  thus  already  been  cited ;  the  rest  are  here 
added.  1s  Kat  aaOevrjo-ov&iv  ot  dcreySers;  I4  Kat  ra  ovo/xara  TWV  tepcwv; 
I5  Kara  TOV  /Sao-iXews;  I9  Kat  €KStK>/<ra>  €fjL<f>av<*)<s  €?rt  ra  TrpoVvAa;  I10  dwro 
7rvAr;s  aTTOKCvrowTcov ;  I11  ot  KarotKovvres  rrjv  KaraKCKO/x/Aeviyv ;  I12  e^epev- 
v^o*a);  I16  OXtyetvs,  dwptas  Kat  d^>avto-p,ov) ;  I18  o-vvreXctav  Kat 
21  (rvvd^drjTe.  Kat  o*w8e'^>yTe;  23  Kpt/xa,  Kat  aTroKptVeo^e  avra;  24 
eo-rat;  2B  TrdpotKOt  Kpryrtuv;  26  Kp^rry;  29  Kat  Aa/xao^Kos,  w? 

214  ws  ^a/xatAcovTCS ;  31  w  17  e7rt<^av^s  Kat  a7ro\e\VTp(afievr)  TroAts, 
^  7T€pto*Tepa;  33  XvKOt  T^5  'ApayStas ;  36  ev  8ta^>^opa,  ycovtat  avraiv;  38  cts 
fjfjiepOLV  dvao"Tao"co>s  p,ov  cts  fAaprvpiov ;  39  on  TOT€  p,eTaoTp€i^<o  CTTI  Xaov? 
yXo>o"o*av  fits  yeveav  avr^s;  310  CK  Treparwv  Trora/xoiv  'At^tOTrtas  otcrovo-t 
^vo-tas  ;u,ot;  318  ws  ev  ^epa  eopr^s,  ovat. 

§VIII.     In  the  passages  represented  in  these    collections  the 
text  of  B.  is  for  the  most  part  confirmed; and  its  readings,  except 


1  In  the  course  of  transmission  an  obelus  has  evidently  fallen  out  before 
The  one  before  'Iotf5a  is  perhaps  due  to  the  fact  that  in  some  manuscripts  a  new  line  was 
begun  with  this  word,  for  the  diacritical  marks  were  repeated  before  the  first  word  of  a 
new  line. 


The  Septuagint.  31 

such  as  are  about  to  be  individually  considered,  may  be  at  once 
adopted  in  preference  to  their  alternates. 

1B  All  the  evidence  goes  to  show  that  /cat  TOVS  Trpotr/cvvowras 
was  absent  from  the  original  text  of  the  Septuagint,  and  these 
words  must  be  deleted  from  B. 

I9  In  omitting  CTTI  Travras  B.  seems  to  have  no  better  support 
than  40  and  239.  Field  and  the  Syro-Hexaplaric  text  disagree. 
It  is  necessary  to  insert  this  in  B.  The  Syro-Hexaplaric  omission 
of  @cov  is  not  explained  by  a  note,  but  that  this  word  was  in  the 
original  Septuagint  is  attested  by  the  Vulgate. 

22  The  last  clause  is  asterisked  in  the  Syro-Hexapla.  In  the 
preceding  clause  OvpSv  is  added  with  opyrfv  (^Kjnn),  and  in  the 
clause  asterisked  o/oyJ/s  seems  to  have  been  read  for  Ovpov.  There 
seems  to  have  been  some  confusion  between  these  clauses  the 
initial  words  of  which  are  the  same.  At  least  "aberant  igitur 
haec  a  '  Septuaginta '  "  does  not  at  once  follow,  especially  as  the 
Old  Latin  preserved  in  the  Speculum  omits  the  second  of  these 
clauses  and  retains  the  third.  The  same  omission  is  suggested  by 
a  corrector  of  Cod.  Sinaiticus  («c-b).  These  clauses  are  peculiarly 
liable  to  omission  by  homoioteleuton,  as  233,  Cod.  Toletanus  and 
several  Hebrew  manuscripts  demonstrate.  In  view  of  this  fact, 
and  more  especially  because  of  the  evident  confusion,  it  seems 
unnecessary  to  delete  either  one  clause  or  the  other. 

27  The  Syro-Hexapla  misrepresents  Origen  in  'suggesting  that 
his  fifth  column  read  airo  TT/OOO-WTTOU  wuiv  -f-  'lov&x  X  .  The  obelus 
must  be  placed  before  the  first  word.  These  words  were  perhaps 
incorporated  into  the  text  by  someone  who  did  not  understand 
the  absolute  use  of  /caraAveiv  in  the  sense  of  to  lodge. 

35'6  According  to  the  Syro-Hexaplaric  notes  and  text  Origen's 
fifth  column  read: 

Kpifjua.  avrov  Swcret  *  eis  <£<*>?  /cat  OVK  a.7T€Kpvf3rj  /cat  OVK  cyvw  (<rav)  dSt/ctav 
ev  aTTonrrjcru  X  /cat  OVK  ets  vt/cos  dSt/ctav  ev  8uL<f>06pa  -r-  /caT€(T7ra<7a  VTrepr;- 
<£dVovs  ^avto-^o-av  X .  The  signs  are  again  misplaced,  for  the 
last  three  words  are  certainly  not  a  Septuagint  addition.  It  is 
known  that  Origen  sometimes  gave  .two  readimgs  where  the 
Septuagint  differs  widely  from  the  Hebrew,  and  that  he  then 
indicated  the  Hebrew  current  in  his  time  by  an  asterisk  and  the 
Septuagint  by  an  obelus.  Evidently  someone  who  was  ignorant 


32  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

of  this  special  method  of  indicating  a  doublette  has  arbitrarily 
brought  about  conformity  with  the  general  practice.  One  of  the 
metobeli  must  be  deleted,  and  the  other  must  be  substituted  for 
the  obelus.  An  obelus  must  be  placed  before  the  first  ev.  The 
Septuagint  reading  thus  obtained  makes  fairly  good  sense,  but  it 
cannot  be  regarded  as  an  attempted  translation  of  the  Hebrew 
that  has  come  down  to  us.  There  are  indications  in  the  collation 
of  H.  P.  that  vet/cos  must  be  read  for  vt/<os  and  Sia<£d/oafor  Sia<£0opa. 
The  Syriac  for  eV  aTramJo-ei  is  Ik^sks.  — Field  seems  to  have  read 
this  as  ]&±o  A^ — and  the  meaning  may  be  in  doubt.  The  Origenic 
reading  thus  becomes  a  triple  gloss,  "in  doubt,"  "and  not  in 
dispute  dSi/a'av,"  "in  disagreement".  The  trouble  seems  to  have 
been  due  to  the  words  ntzto  SlK,  the  first  of  which  was  so  translated 
that  the  second  had  no  apparent  government.  Comments  occa- 
sioned by  this  supplanted  the  text,  while  a  slight  change  in  one 
case  gave  a  good  sense,  and  in  another  a  possible  translation  of 
the  Hebrew  word  (n&2i  =  ev  8ta<f>06pa) .  The  original  Septuagint 
for  n^  is  thus  unknown,  but  ev  aTratTT/o-et  /cat  OVK  eis  vet/cos  dStKiav  h 
8ia<f>06pa  must  be  deleted. 

38  D;N  is  represented  in  the  Syro-Hexapla,  but  according  to  Field 
it  was  not  represented  in  Origen's  fifth  column.  It  is  absent  from 
the  Old  Latin.  As  0v/x,os  and  0/0717  translate  ^x,  pin,  DJN,  rn3p  and 
non  indifferently,  it  was  impossible  to  translate  literally  where 
three  of  these  words  occur  together  without  repeating  one  or  the 
other  of  them.  One  Greek  word  thus  sometimes  represents  two 
Hebrew  words  (cf.  Is.  1313,  Jer.  48,  Zeph.  2a),  and  this  may  well 
be  the  case  here. 

310  The  clause  7rpocr8e'£o/>uu  iv  Steo-Trap/xeVoi?  /xov  is  to  be  deleted 
because  it  is  absent  from  the  Hexaplaric  text  and  the  Old  Latin 
of  the  Speculum. 

312  The  reading  vTroAij^o/xat  is  an  early  inner-Greek  corruption 
for  i}7ro\€i\l/ofjicu. 

The  text  of  the  Cambridge  Manual  Septuagint,  which  is  based 
on  a  facsimile  edition,  is  to  be  preferred  to  that  of  H.  P.,  which 
represents  a  copy  of  B.  made  by  the  Dutch  Septuagint  editor, 
L.  Bos.  Where  the  Manual  contains  T  instead  of  B.  (39b-320), 
H.  P.  is  to  be  preferred,  and  so  xxu  ^o-o/xat  (319)  and  on  (with 
,  320)  are  to  be  inserted.  €£oAe'0/>evo-£  (211)  should  be  e£oAo- 


The  Septuagint.  33 


0/oevo-e  (cf.  37).  iraiSiav  (3a)  should  be  TraiScutv  (cf.  37).  aXwvos  (29) 
must  be  corrected  to  dA.os  (Putamus  dA.os  inter  pretatos,  id  est^  sails  ; 
sed  ab  imperitis,  qui  0i/x,o>vtav,  Aoc  es£,  acervum,  frumenti  vel 
frugum,  putaverunt,  pro  oAos  additis  duabus  litteris,  o>  et  v,  quasi 
ad  consequential^,  frugum,  aXwvos,  Aoc  es£,  areae  positum—  Jerome)  . 
As  there  seem  to  be  no  quotations  of  Zephaniah  in  the  early 
Greek  Church  Fathers,  the  New  Testament  Apocrypha,  the  New 
Testament,  Josephus,  Philo  or  the  Old  Testament  Apocrypha,  no 
earlier  text  than  that  now  established  can  be  obtained. 

§  IX.  The  readings  of  the  Septuagint  which  illustrate  the 
general  character  of  the  translation  without  proving  differences 
of  text  can  now  be  presented.  From  these  it  will  be  seen  that 
the  Septuagint  has  no  general  characteristics  which  it  does  not 
share  with  the  Peshitta  or  the  Vulgate,  or  with  both.1 

1s  €K\efyu  cKAtTreTo)  —  ^  fpx  *]DK  (Est.  9"  and  *  73  19  seem  to  indi- 
cate that  forms  of  «]io  were  read  here;  cf.,  however,  DtK  *]DK  (I8), 
where  the  verb  was  undoubtedly  regarded  as  in  the  3d  person. 
The  absence  of  a  translation  for  SD  makes  it  entirely  uncertain 
what  the  Septuagintist  read  in  his  text).  1s  ircrara  —  e|iy  (collec- 
tive) ;  dvo/xovs  —  D1K  (this  is  a  change  for  theological  reasons  rather 
than  an  inner-Greek  corruption  from  dv0/>o>7rous  [cf.  I17,  avOp<i>- 
TTOVS  —  DIK].  It  is  unnecessary  to  suppose  that  the  Septuagintist 
had  either  D'yeh  D1K  [G.  A.  Smith]  or  [Gratz]  D'KBn  in  his  text). 
I4  ovofuiTa  —  DE?  (collective)  ;  KM  additional.  I5  Sw/xara  —  nUJ  (cf.  * 
129").  I6  aTTo  —  nn«D;  KOL  TOVS  p)  ^rowras  —  lK?p3  X1?  ItfKl  (the 
Greek  and  Hebrew  differ  in  regard  to  the  verb-form  to  be  used 
with  the  negative)  ;  dn-cxo/Aecous  TOV  Kvpiov  —  int^"n  (the  participial 
form  is  again  retained;  for  the  sake  of  clearness  the  suffix  is 
translated  by  its  logical  antecedent,  cf.  Jer.  83).  I7  €vAa/?e«r0€— 
DH  (cf.  Zech.  217);  Ova-uiv  avrov—  rUT  (cf.  214,  avr^s).  I8  Kal  lora* 
.....  KOL  e/cSt/cTjo-w  —  smp£)l  ....  mm  (the  Septuagintist  does  not 
seem  to  have  understood  the  Hebrew  tense  consecution)  ;  fv8vtw.ro. 
—  BhaSD  (collective).  I9  TrpoVvXa  —  jnso  (cf.  I12)  ;  ®eov  additional  be- 
tween "JIK  and  its  suffix  (these  words  were  thought  to  refer  to 
the  temple,  and  by  this  addition  the  reference  is  brought  out 


1  Because  the  translator  of  Zephaniah  seems  to  have  known  no  law  but  caprice  in  his 
translations  of  the  article,  these  have  not  been  referred  to ;  for  the  same  reason  there  are 
but  few  references  to  tenses. 


34  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

more  clearly).  1"  e^p^e'vot — ^DJ  (cf.  II  Sam.  2412) ;  cv  rrj 
—run  (cf.  316).  I12  XvXvov— rnu  (cf.  I9).  I13  ev  avrats  additional. 
I14  Initial  on  and  Kat  additional  (interpretative).  I18  Kat  o-TrovS^v — 
nSn3J  }K  (^r^rai,  Jer.  158).  22  opyrjv — *]K  pin  (cf.  Is.  1313  and 
Jer.  48,  passages  in  which  0v/xos  translate  f]X  pin  .  In  38  Dyr  seems 
to  have  been  omitted  in  translation  because  the  Septuagintist's 
supply  of  synonyms  was  exhausted).  23  rairtwoi — ^y  (= Si,  31S) ; 
OTTWS^^SIK.  24  Kat  additional;  eKpt^T/o-erat — niBnr  (the  construc- 
tion is  changed  to  avoid  the  resumptive  suffix).  25  dXXo<£vX(Dv — 
(this  is  the  usual  translation  except  in  the  Hexateuch).  25 
v/xas — sprnatfn  (the  object  in  the  Septuagint  is  not  Canaan, 
but  the  Philistines);  CK  KaroiKtas — 3tfr  pKD  (cf.  36).  28  7rpo/3aY(ov — 
pv  (collective).  27  rots  KaraXoiTrois — rviKtf  (concrete  for  abstract, 
cf.  313);  eTrco-KCTTTat — ips1  (=€KStK>7(ra>,  I8-9;  the  change  of  tense 
is  interpretative).  28  ovetSto-^ovs — r\3in  (cf.  11S) ;  e/xeyaXwovro 
— iVun  (=  e/xeyaA.w0*7<rav,  210)  ;  opia  fiou — oSuj  (the  reading  of 
the  Septuagint  is  intrinsically  improbable,  for  the  phrase 
my  border  in  the  sense  of  territory  occurs  nowhere  else 
with  Jehovah  as  speaker  ;  cf.  I  Chr.  410).  29  Kat  (2)  ad- 
ditional ;  Kvptos  Ttov  6\W/A€<ov — ni&OY  mrr  (=  TravroKpaTw/o,  210)  ; 
KaToAowroi — nn«iy  and  ins .  210  toy  omitted  (this  omission  was  inten- 
tional to  strengthen  the  idea,  cf.  Jer.  48aM2).  211  c7ri</>avvjo-cTat — 
N1U  (cf.  Joel  231,  Hab.  I7) ;  TWV  eOv&v  additional  (this  addition  cor- 
responds to  the  change  from  gods  to  kings  in  the  Peshitta).  214 
KCU'  (4)  and  avnjs  (4)  additional;  OrjpLa  TI/S  y^s — 'U  irrn  (the 
Septuagint  has  the  phrase  as  it  occurs  in  Gen.  I24,  cf .  *  792) ; 
Orjpia  <j><j)vir)<Tei — 111^  Sp  (?)  ;  Kat  ^a/xatXcovres  Kat  e^tvot — 13p  DJl  HNp  DJi 

(collectives).  215  cXTrt's — nan  (cf.  EC.  94) ;  vo/4  0>;ptW — n^nS  pin. 
32  Kat  additional.  33  ev— Dips  (cf.  31M7).  33  w?  (2)  additional. 
3*  Kat  additional.  36  e^ep^/xwo-o) — ^nninn  (cf.  27).  36b  and  213  are 
good  illustrations  of  free  and  literal  translation.  37  Kat  additional ; 
€^o\oOp€vO'rfT€ — ni:r  (the  re.  was  added  under  the  influence  of  the 
preceding  verbs)  ;  TrdVra  oo-a — SD  .  38  VTro/xavov  /xov — ^  13H  ;  dvaa-- 
/x.ov — ''Dip  ;  ets  (rvvaycoya?  e0i/cov  rov  cts  Se^acr^at  ^SacrtXet?  rov  tK^eat 
^p1?  D'U  ^DX1?  (^ao-tXets  is  a  contraction  for  jSooiXe&t?)  ; 
minus  SD^T  (cf.  22).  39  yXwoxrav — HSt^;  Travra? — D^D  (cf.  I7,  28)  ; 
£vyov — DDiy  (change  of  figure).  310  CK  Treparwv  TTOTO/AWV  'At0tO7rtas — 
1^13  nn:1?  13^D  (cf.  215).  313  Kat  additional,  mxtf  is  taken  as  the 


Interdependence  of  the  Versions.  35 

subject  of  the  preceding,  not  of  the  following,  verb ;  K<U  OVK  lorrai 
6  eK<£o/3a>v  avrovs — Tina  JW  (the  part,  in  this  phrase  never  has  an 
object,  cf.  Is.  17a,  etc.;  cf.  also  26,  3",  I7,  2").  314  Bvyarep  'leppv- 
Stm?'  (perhaps  the  change  is  due  to  the  following  w 
cf.  Gen.  3681  B.) ;  «£  0X775  rr}?  KapSuxs  <rou— n1?  Sm.  316  Xc- 
<re  €K  x«/3os  l\^P^v  °"ov — ^P'**  ™3  (interpretative  expansion ; 
it  is  unnecessary  with  Stekhoven  to  suppose  that  JH3  was  read) ; 
h  /xeVw  o-ov— }31p3  (cf.  33'17).  316  «v  T<?  Kcupo>— OVD  (cf.  I13).  317 
ev  o-ot — }:np:j  (cf.  33,  316);  object  pronoun  additional  (2).  319  Xe'y« 
Kvptos  additional.  319  oi/o/xacrrovs — Dfc?  (320  idem). 
additional ;  eW>7riov  V 


OHAPTEK  IV. 

THE  INTERDEPENDENCE  OF  THE  VERSIONS. 

§  I.  The  Peshitta  is  of  Post-Christian  origin,  and  in  New 
Testament  times  the  Septuagint  was  already  so  well  established 
that  it  was  quoted  as  authoritative.  The  wide  popularity  that 
the  Septuagint  enjoyed  would  tend  to  cause  many  of  its  phrases, 
expressions  and  interpretations  to  pass  into  current  use,  and 
some  of  these  may  have  been  unconsciously  adopted  by  the 
makers  of  the  new  version.  As  they  were  not  entirely  familiar 
with  Hebrew,  it  is  natural  that  they  should  consult  the  existing 
version  when  in  doubt.  The  two  translations  continued  to  exist 
side  by  side  as  ecclesiastically  recognized  versions,  and  correction 
of  the  one  by  the  other  is  therefore  not  impossible,  especially 
since  many  Greek  ecclesiastics  were  resident  in  Syria  for  a  longer 
or  shorter  time.  That  the  Peshitta  and  Syro-Hexapla  may 
have  influenced  each  other  mutually  is  shown  by  the  case  of  Bar- 
Hebraeus,  who  is  known  to  have  used  them  both.  The  probability 
of  interdependence,  either  initial  or  subsequent,  thus  established 
is  so  strong  that  the  Septuagint  and  the  Peshitta  cannot  be 
regarded  as  independent  witnesses  when  they  agree  together 
against  the  Hebrew.1  In  Zephaniah  the  influence  of  the  Septua- 


1  This  principle  is  of  course  invalid  when  the  two  versions  follow  a  common  tradition 
that  can  be  located  in  the  Aramaic  Targum.  The  Targum  of  Zephaniah  is,  however,  so 
paraphrastic  that  it  gives  little  aid  to  Textual  Criticism.  That  which  it  offers  can  here  be 
conveniently  collected:—!6  DD^D  is  interpreted  as  idols.  I9  "1J1  J^IH  is  explained  as 
those  who  walk  in  the  laws  of  the  Philistines.  2*  The  imperatives  are  rendered  by 
words  having  the  root  idea  of  assemble.  214  The  Targum  adds  K3iy  to  ^Ip  .  31  PHIID— 
nJOID  .  3»  DD^  is  represented  by  ^fQ  •  3"  The  obscure  clause  of  this1  verse  is  inter- 
preted by  the  captivity  of  my  people  ivhich  was  taken  captive. 


36  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

gint  on  the  Peshitta  (or  vice  versa,  cf.   310)  can  be  discerned  in 
several  places. 

I7  0^0  —  evAa/?eto-0£  (Syro-Hexapla,  a^-*?).  I11 
Hwoi  dpyv/oio)  (Syro-Hexapla  ^»Nn4Sn).  I12  ^0019040^,  ^»ft  .»  —  Kara- 
<j>povovvra<i  CTTI  TO,  ^vXay/Aara  avTtov  (Syro-Hexapla,  U'«4J).  I13  voous 
additional  —  eV  avrats  additional  (?)  .  1  14  P-»-^c  U  .00  i-j^o  —  VLKp^  Kai 
<rK\rjpa  (reraKTat)  Awa-n/  (Syro-Hexapla,  P-^^  paa^io]  ].—  *-oo 
r^s  o-a/oKas  avrw.  21  1?>  P?  l^>  ojJflj^o  a-*lsA.l__<r 
TO  €0vos  TO  aTratScvTOV  (Syro-Hexapla,  1|-»^1  cjj0]A.]o 
5  P?  V^a^).  22  ^0001^  U,^  —  Trpo  Tot)  yeveV0ai  v/xas  (Syro-Hexapla, 
The  Peshitta  and  the  Septuagint  both  omit  or  in  trans- 
lation. 2s  P-?  0,^1^0  —  Kpfa  epyd£e<r6e.  26  Ur^  —  Kprfrrj.  27  l^a- 
additional  —  T^S  Oa\do-<nj<s  additional.  SA-X^1  —  eTri^anyo-eTat  (cf.  the 
Syriac  translation  of  &nij  in  Joel  211>S1  and  Hab.  I7)  ;  t-^aJ  —  e£oAo- 
Opevo-t.  214  ^oiJJ  UQ-^*  —  Qypia.  ^vyja-u.  31  l^^r-  —  eTri^avrjs  (Syro- 
Hexapla,  1^^-t-1)  ;  l^Q-r3  —  aTroXfXvTpupivri  (Syro-Hexapla,  l^-t-s). 
3s  t-1  (2)  additional—  <is  (2)  additional  (?).  37  <*^?—<t>0pdcrOe  (?)  ; 

.      38 


Kat 


rvpiov.  39  r»*  ir-^^  —  VTTO  Cvyov  Iva.  310  The  Septuagint  and  the 
Peshitta  both  omit  svi£}  ra  nnj;.  318  ^.oov^  additional  —  avTovs  addi- 
tional. 317  ^^r»*  —  /catvicio-e  NO-^J  ^]  —  <J,S  lv  ^eaa.  319 


The  use  that  the  Peshitta  translator  made  of  the  Septuagint  is 
on  the  whole  a  very  intelligent  one,  although  agreement  in  error 
can  be  found  in  the  above  list  (lia,  31).  In  I14  he  preferred  to  omit 
DSP  rather  than  accept  TeVaKTeu.  In  23  he  refused  to  accept  a7roKpiW0c 
avTa,  but  he  adopted  the  Septuagint  interpretation  of  the  first  clauses 
of  the  verse  ;  dependence  on  the  Septuagint  was  responsible  for  the 
omission  of  the  second  wpl.  Perhaps  the  translation  of  p^na 
(214)  by  the  colorless  °-^f>  is  due  to  the  Septuagint  Siopvy/Aao-iv. 
The  Peshitta  has  hardly  any  demonstrable  departures  from  the 
Massoretic  tradition  which  it  has  not  derived  from  the  Septuagint. 
That  the  Peshitta  has  influenced  the  Septuagint  in  some  of  the 
instances  cited,  while  not  impossible,  is  still  extremely  doubtful. 
There  is,  however,  to  be  found  in  many  Greek  manuscripts  a  very 
early  translation  of  the  obscure  phrase  in  310  (7rpoo-8e'£o/xcu  ev  &e- 
o-TrapjuteVots  /AOV)  ;  perhaps  this  belonged  to  the  original  Septua- 
gint, but  was  omitted  under  Syriac  influence.  In  at  least  some 


Interdependence  of  the  Versions.  37 

of  the  readings  cited  the  Peshitta  seems  to  have  influenced  the 
Syriac  translation  from  the  Septuagint  (cf.  21,  31). 

§  II.  Jerome  lamented  the  fact  that  in  his  day  the  world  '  was 
divided  between  three  opposing  texts  of  the  Septuagint.'1  It  was 
his  purpose  in  his  translation  to  get  behind  the  Septuagint  back 
to  the  "Hebrew  verity";  and  though  he  frequently  reminds  his 
reader  that  his  work  is  not  condemnatory  of  the  ancients,2  he  is 
not  slow  to  point  out  wherein  and  how  they  erred.  As  the  pur- 
pose of  Origen  was  similar  to  his  own,  he  was  naturally  a  great 
admirer  of  the  Hexapla.  His  use  of  it  can  readily  be  illustrated 
by  a  few  quotations : 

27  Quod  autem  legitur  in  '  Septuagintam '  a  facie filiorum  Juda, 
obelo  praenotavimus,  nee  in  Hebraeo  enim,  nee  apud  ullam  fertur 
interpretatum.  39  Ubi  nos  interpretati  sumus  reddam  populis 
labium  electum,  pro  electo  4  Septuagintes '  dixerunt  in  generationem 
ejus,  ut  subaudiatur,  terrae.  Et  hinc  error  exortus  est,  quod 
verbum  Hebraicum  BARURA,  quod  Aq.  et  Theo.  electum,  Sym. 
Mundum  interpretatus  est,  'Septuagintes'  legerunt  BADURA.8 

318  Miror  autem  Aq.  et  '  Septuaginta ' in  eo  loco  ubi 

diximus:  congregabo  quia  ex  te  erant,  pro  erant  interpretati 
voluisse  vae,  sive  ot,  quod  semper  Aq.  non  pro  plangendo,  sed  pro 
vocando  et  inclamando  ponit. 

There  are  only  a  few  passages  in  the  Vulgate  which  seem  to 
indicate  direct  dependence  on  the  Septuagint.  Nomina  and 
6v6fjuara  (I4),  silete  and  evXafttLo-Oe  (17)>  transeuntem  and  Tropcvo/xevov 
(22),  et  attenuabit  and  /cat  e£oA.o0/oaxrei  (211),  the  additions  of  quasi 
and  d>s  (33),  expecta  and  vTro'/xeii/ov  (38),  and  the  addition  of  the 
same  suffix  (39)  may  all  be  accidental.  Columba  (31)  may  not  be 
due  to  the  Septuagint  ircpto-Tcpa,  for  in  Jer.  2538  Jerome  makes  the 
same  mistake.  Corvus  (214)  is,  however,  an  intentional  agree- 
ment with  the  Septuagint  against  the  Hebrew  of  his  day  (Quod 


1  Totus  •  •  •  •  orbis  hac  inter  se  trifaria  varietate  compugnat. — Preface  to  Chronicles. 

2  Obsecro  te  lector  ne  laborem  meum  reprehensionem  existimes  antiquorum. 

9  In  Zephaniah  none  of  the  minor  Greek  Versions  are  extant  in  manuscript,  and  only 
fragments  contained  in  quotations  such  as  these  have  been  recovered.  The  longest  of 
these  fragments  is  one  from  Symmachus,  preserved  by  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia :  (310) 
TrtpaOev  irorafjiuv  ''AiBioirtas  iKer&jovrd  /we  T£KVO.  T&V  8ie<TKOpTrur/j.tv(i>v  vir'1  tfwv  tvty- 
K<a<ri  Swpov  tfjiot.  They  are  of  no  textual  value,  for  they  have  for  the  most  part  been 
preserved  in  citation  only  because  they  agree  with  the  Massoretic  Text  against  the  Sep- 
tuagint. 


38  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

nos   et  *  Septuaginta '   similiter   transtulimus   corvus in 

Hebraeo  ponitur  HAREB.  The  Vulgate  and  the  Septuagint 
agree  further  in  the  peculiar  addition  of  TiSK  between  <IJIK  and 
its  suffix  (I9) ;  in  the  interpretation  of  *pDJ  (21),  101:1  (2s)  and 
nSjUJ  (31) ;  and  in  the  subordination  of  the  independent  clause 
of  3ao.  All  these  agreements  can  hardly  be  accidental,  'especially 
since  it  is  known  that  Jerome  was  thoroughly  familiar  with  the 
Septuagint. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  DEPARTURES  OF  THE  VERSIONS  FROM  THE  MASSORETIC 
TRADITION  AND  THEIR  POSITIVE  VARIANTS  FROM  THE  CONSO- 
NANTAL TEXT. 

§  I.  Vowels  and  accents  were  introduced  into  the  Hebrew 
text  not  earlier  than  the  sixth  century  A.  D.  The  so-called 
Sopherim  in  the  first  Christian  centuries  fixed  the  form  of  writing 
as  regards  the  matres  lectionis.  There  is  good  reason  to  believe 
that  there  was  neither  word  or  sentence  division  in  the  earliest 
manuscripts.  It  is  therefore  possible  to  consider  the  consonantal 
text  entirely  apart  from  the  form  which  tradition  has  given  it  by 
the  word  and  verse  division  that  now  obtains,  and  from  the  inter- 
pretation that  the  vocalization  gives  it;  for  these  are  as  it  were 
superimposed  upon  the  original  text.  The  translators  in  some 
cases  adopted  a  possible  reading  or  interpretation  which  disagrees 
with  the  Massoretic  tradition. J 

(a).  1s  Congregans  (2) — t|OK  (*  efoKj  cf.  I2).  I5  Melchom — 
D^Sp  (*o3Sp  is  read  in  the  Massoretic  text  only  in  I  Kgs.  11 B'8 
and  II  Kgs.  2313 ;  it  has  been  proposed  to  read  it  also  in  I  Kgs. 
II7,  II  Sam.  1230,  I  Chr.  202,  Am.  I15  and  Jer.  491'3.  Jehovah  is 
often  called  a  king  [cf.  31B;  Harper,  Amos  and  Hosea,  p.  141; 
and  Brown,  Driver  and  Briggs'  Hebrew  Lexicon,  Art.  ^D,  3], 
The  name  Milchom  occurs  or  is  proposed  as  a  reading  only  in 


1  In  this  and  the  following  lists  the  readings  that  must  be  rejected  as  evidently  wrong 
have  been  indicated  by  a  star.  Some  that  have  only  the  negative  merit  of  being  not 
impossible  have  been  left  undistinguished,  and  those  that  commend  themselves  some- 
what more  strongly  have  been  marked  with  a  dagger. 


Departures  from  Massoretic  Tradition.  39 

passages  in  which  Ammon  is  mentioned  in  the  immediate  context. 
In  this  passage  there  is  no  reference  to  Ammon,  and  therefore  it 
is  necessary  to  accept  the  Massoretic  punctuation  and  to  look  for 
the  exact  meaning  of  the  words  in  the  use  of  different  preposi- 
tions with  the  same  verb).  lu  conticuit — nmj  (*n??"^T).  I14  The 
Vulgate  takes  in  as  a  predicate  adjective  with  Dr.  2&  perditorum 
— DWD  fD'in?,  cf.  I  Kgs.  712— Pro  CHORETIM,  quod  dicitur, 
perditorum,  nomen  Cretae  Insulae  ('  Septuagintes ')  putaverunt — 
Jerome).  214  attenuabo — mix  (*H^«,  cf.  2").  38  in  futurum 
— ~W^  (t  Ubi  nos  transtulimus,  in  die  resurrectionis  meae  in 
futurum,  et  omnes  interpretati  sunt,  in  testimonium,  Hebraeus, 
qui  me  in  Scripturis  instituit,  asserebat  LAED  in  praesenti  loco 
magis  ek  eri,  id  est,  in  futurum  debere  intelligi — Jerome;  cf.  Is. 
308,  Am.  I11,  Is.  98  and  Gen.  49"  in  the  Vulgate).  318  Nugas— 
•;u  (*nugas  ....  a  nobis  ita  ut  in  Hebraeo  erat  positum,  ut  nosse 
possimus  linguam  Hebraeicam  omnium  linguarum  esse  matricem. 
This  has  been  characterized  as  an  interesting  bit  of  crude  com- 
parative linguistics.  Amara  =  in  (I14)  would  have  served 
Jerome's  purpose  much  better.  The  Septuagint  offers  a  parallel 
in  x<w>s=\J,  (Mic.  I4).  318  ut  non  ultra  habeas — Sy  fiKtyn  (*L?j;  n&u?n, 
cf.  Lev.  197).  320  in  tempore  quo  congregabo — ^3p  AP3  (f  AP?). 
See  further  under  (c)  22,  31'1,  320. 

(5)  !6>onn\sn — D5Sn  (cf.  Vulgate,  supra).  I11  ojo^nnij  (*naru). 
214  V^H* — 3in  (^l1?)-  3n  Kinn  DVD  is  connected  with  what  precedes 
and  not  with  what  follows.  See  further  under  (c)  I11,  2a,  31,  38,  319. 

(c)  I1  TOV  TOV  xovo-i — 'Bho  p  (the  Septuagintist  has  interpreted 
'J^O  1 3  patronymically  as  the  following  mov  seems  to  show).  I11 
rv)v  KaraKCKo/x/oieVr/v — ^roDH  (*  i^nDQn) ;  kfjioiuOrj — npnj  (there  are  two 
similar  roots  of  which  one  means  *  to  be  like',  the  other,  to  destroy). 
I12  <£v\ay/wrra  (cf.  Peshitta)  avrwv — Drnni?(  *  DnnD»,  cf.  Ex.  1242). 
I14  reraKrat — D»  (*Dt?) ;  ^13 J  was  read  as  an  adjective  with  the  fol- 
lowing DV  and  not  as  a  noun.  I17  KCU  expect — }3i?i  (*  ^3^,1).  2a 
TTopevd/xevov  (cf.  Peshitta  and  Vulgate) — "O;?  (j-  13 j;).  2*  aTro/c/oiVeo-- 
^c  avra — nij^  (*  ^nwjj).  214  Stopvy/xacm/ — j^n  (this  meaning  of  the 
word  is  to  be  found  nowhere  else  in  the  Septuagint).  31  aTroXeXv- 
Tpa>/u,eV>7  (cf.  Vulgate  and  Peshitta) — nS&u:  (there  are  two  roots 
SKJ,  of  which  one  means  *  to  redeem ;  the  other,  to  pollute)  •  ff 
(cf.  Vulgate). — mrn  (this  form  may  be  a  *  noun  subject 


40  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

of  nyntf,  32;  or  a  participle  from  nr,  to  oppress).  33  'Apa/?ias — 
anj;  (*  3lj£,  cf.  Jer.  25";  in  Hab.  I8  the  Septuagint  bas  the  same 
reading,  and  in  Jer.  56  ecus  TWV  ofciW  represents  rn3ij?  =  rr:i  iy).  3 
(cf.  Peshitta) — ItfS  (i#7;  cf.  Yulgate,  supra).  312  nnKtf 
is  taken  as  the  subject  of  the  preceding  verb  by  the  Septu- 
agint. 316  epct  Kvpos — "iraK?.  (*  lOK"1  was  read  and  KV/HOS  was  inter- 
pretatively  added,  cf.  319).  319  ev  o-ot  eve/cei/  o-ou — ipyo  ho  fitf  (*  }fiK 
W?S) ;  T^V  €KTT€TTLe^€vr}v  (cf.  Peshitta) — j^n  (cf.  Mic.  48'7,  Gen. 
3233 ;  there  are  two  roots  yStf  of  which  the  y  is  represented  in  Arabic 
by  Dad  and  Ta  respectively;  the  one  may  mean,  to  oppress-,  the 
other,  to  limp.  The  former  is  found  in  the  Old  Testament  only 
in  the  noun  ySv,  rib ;  but  the  Septuagint  suggests  very  plausibly 
that  the  word  here  and  in  Mic.  46-7  be  taken  from  the  root  that 
has  the  meaning  of  to  oppress.  Barth  [  Wurzeluntersuchungen  .  .  .  , 

uu 

pp.  39,  40]  suggests  the  Arabic  J^£  as  the  cognate  of  the  word 
here  used).  319  h  rw  Kai/ow  orav  eto-Sc'lo/xat — '^p  '"W?  (f  AP?,  of. 
Vulgate). 

(d)  These  readings,  so  far  as  they  are  not  at  once  condemned 
by  internal  evidence,  are  suggestive  for  the  interpretation  of  the 
text.  Whether  they  are  wrong  or  right,  they  shed  additional 
light  on  the  translations  and  translators.  They  also  indicate  the 
gradual  crystallization  of  the  tradition  that  grew  up  around  the 
text,  for  departures  from  it  decrease  in  the  versions  in  the  order 
of  their  rise. 

§  II.  The  readings  of  the  versions  so  far  considered  either 
agree  with  the  current  consonantal  text,  or  else  data  are  lacking 
to  show  that  the  text  of  which  they  are  severally  the  translation 
varied  from  it.  It  is  still  necessary  to  consider  the  equivalents 
in  regard  to  which  there  is  positive  evidence  of  disagreement. 
Many  variants  are  by  the  context  or  by  parallel  passages  shown 
to  be  due  to  the  intentional  or  unintentional  faithlessness  of  the 
translators  to  their  copies,  or  to  the  defective  character  of  the 
exemplars  which  they  used.  Those  that  are  not  thus  condemned 
will  represent  each  version's  actual  contribution  to  the  textual 
criticism  of  Zephaniah. 

(1)  Most  of  the  variants  are  reducible  to  the  addition,  omis- 
sion, transposition,  or  change  of  single  letter?. 


Variants  from  Consonantal  Text.  41 

(a)  I14  tribulabitur — rm   (I1*,  I17  and  especially  Am.   311  show 
that  *[n]iY  was  read;  the  rendering  by  the  future  is  interpretative, 
cf.  Am.   3",  idem).     214  robur  e/wa— my  (*n;Ty,  cf.   Pr.  21",  Jer. 
5 168;  this  change  may  be  due  to  the  punctuation  of  the  preceding 
nnK  which  Jerome  adopted).     31  provocatrix — HfcOlD  ( Quod  signi- 

ficantius  Hebraeice  dicitur  *MARA,  id  est,  TrapairiKpaivov<ra — 
Jerome).  310  filii — r»3  ('J3;  this  may,  however,  be  an  inner-Latin 
corruption  fromt/jfo'a).  See  further  under  (c)  214. 

(b)  ).«f\.. — -ppjn  (*  n^pSn).     I10  )r>$ — D>:n  (OTV,  this  word  is 
always  so  rendered  in  the  Peshitta,  when  it  occurs  in  connection 
with  lytf).     See  further  under  (c)  2a-2,  31,  37-7,  317. 

(c)  I8  OLKOV — "J3  (confusion  between  JVD  and  "ft  is  frequent;  O'KOS 
=  '«,  Jer.   1616,  Ez.   2',  I  Chr.  210;  vloi=no,  Gen.  45",  Ex.  16", 
Jos.  1717,  1816,  Hos.  I7).     I9  e/M<£av(us — jiSin  (it  has  been  suggested 
that  ^n  or  rhl  was  read ;  there  may,  however,  be  a  corruption  in 
Greek  here.     Perhaps  a  participial  form  of  e/u./ftuvo),  i.  e.,  e/A/?avras, 
stood  in  the  original  Septuagint;  cf.  I  Sam.  56,  Greek).       I10  cbro- 
KO/TOWTCDV — D'jnn  (*  D'jnn ;  cf.  II  Chr.  3314).  I14  o-KA^pd— m*  (the  Sep- 
tuagintist  has  translated  a  derivative  of  "ny,  to  be  hard).     2a  irpb 
TOV  yivsvOai  v/xa?  (cf.  Peshitta,  Pr^^zK1?  Qiwa) — pn  trh  D"»D3  (per- 
haps the  Septuagintist  readiprnn  K^  D*iD3  and  made  use  of  the  color- 
less yeve'o-00,1  to  translate  the  verb  because  he  misread  po) ;  av0os — 
^D  (*p) ;  the  omission  of  or  from  the  Septuagint  (cf .  Peshitta) 
may  be  due  to  a  reading  DOT'iDy.     25  irdpoiKoi — "U  (Pro  GOI,  id  est, 
gente,    l  Septuagintes '    legerunt    *  GAR,    hoc    est,    advenam — 
Jerome).     214  KopaK«s  (cf.  Vulgate) — :nn  (t^ij?) ;  TO  Avao-riy/xa  avr^s 
— my  (*nvy,  cf.  Jer.  158,  Hos.  II9,  *  7320;  my,  to  rowse,   is  ren- 
dered by  firavLa-rrjfjiL  in  Job  178).     31  (TTi^av^  (cf.  Peshitta  and  Syro- 
Hexapla)— HKIID    (*  ^«,    cf.    211).     38   4irW^«£vow— D'«  (f  D'w). 
37  €^  6<t>0a\fji£>v  a.vTrjs  (cf .  Peshitta) — miyD  (f  n^ryo) ;  eToi/xa£ov  (cf. 

Peshitta)  opOpicrov  tyOaprai  ira(ra  ^  eTri^vXXts  avrwv — IDOtfn  |3K 
omVSy  ^73  in^ni^n  (cf .  the  Vulgate  rendering  of  the  two  verbs ; 
*  orviSSy  SD  in^nt^n  opt^n  pn)  39  ets  ycveav  avr^s — mna  (*  nTna)^ 
312  evXaprjOTjo-ovTat, — ion(*  1DH,  cf.  I7  and  Ne.  8";  0.™  =  !  is  due  to 
this  reading).  317  fird£u — vw  (*  rnsr;  KCUVW?  (cf.  Peshitta) — »nn' 
(f  E^Hn").  318  TOVS  o-wrerpt/x/xevovs — ^JOD  (  D"pp ;  with  erov  in  the 
Greek  text,  ^3n,  cf .  Ex.  516) ;  318  ovac— rn  (f  'in,  cf.  25) ;  rts 
— n«fe/D  (f  KET"  %n). 


42  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

(2).  There  are  a  few  readings  which  suggest  a  somewhat 
greater  difference  of  text  than  those  just  considered  do. 

1*  ovojjLara — iKtf  (oty,  perhaps  this  is  due  to  the  DK?  in  the  context, 
or  to  either  Hos.  219  or  Zech.  13a).  318  d>s  ev  ^e/oa  (cf.  Peshitta)— 

Qvja-ovrai — DHtf  3  (*  B'0^?rj ;  for  the  sake  of  variety  this  was  rendered 
by  a  passive,   since  DT\DJy  occurs  in  the  immediate  context).     320 

(3).  The  words  in  the  versions  for  which  there  is  no  equiv- 
alent in  the  Hebrew  are,  as  has  already  been  indicated,  evident 
expansions  of  an  interpretative  character.  Where  the  Hebrew 
text  is  fuller  than  that  reflected  by  a  version,  explanation  is  not 
so  easy.  The  only  word  not  represented  in  the  Vulgate  is  mD 
(26).  Except  where  it  is  dependent  on  the  Septuagint  (I14,  2a,  2% 
310?),  the  Peshitta  text  is  as  full  as  the  Hebrew  text  with  but  a 
single  insignificant  exception  (212,  a  suffix  and  a  demonstrative  pro- 
noun omitted).  There  are  only  a  few  places  in  which  the  Septu- 
agint has  no  equivalent  for  words  to  be  found  in  the  Hebrew  text. 
Decision  as  to  whether  these  words  convict  the  Septuagintist  of 
omission  or  illustrate  the  "growth  of  the  Massoretic  Text"  must 
from  the  nature  of  the  case  be  largely  subjective.  From  the 
time  of  Luther  scholars  have  remarked  a  tendency  on  the  part  of 
the  translators  of  the  Septuagint  to  omit  what  they  did  not  under- 
stand. The  translator  of  Zephaniah  must  be  charged  with  omis- 
sion on  this  score. 

1*  Dp  D'lDDn .  Chemarim  occurs  in  only  two  other  places  in  the 
Old  Testament.  In  one  of  these  the  Septuagint  transliterates  it 
(II  Kgs.  235),  and  in  the  other  its  translation  is  the  result  of  a 
transparently  inappropriate  etymology  (maji — KM  Ka0o>s  Tra.pf.TrL- 
Kpavav  avrdv,  Hos.  106).  It  is  thus  entirely  probable  that  this  (and 
the  following)  word  was  omitted  because  it  was  not  understood. 

I6.  The  only  argument  that  can  be  advanced  in  regard  to 
D'lnntfon  (2)  is  stylistic.  It  seems  to  make  the  construction 
rather  awkward.  Cod.  Q  omits  D'jntfjn  (2) ;  this  may  be  the 
Hesychian  reading,  for  Cod.  Q  is  an  Egyptian  manuscript.  This 
disagreement  in  the  Septuagint  makes  it  difficult  to  determine 
which  word,  if  either,  is  additional  in  the  current  Hebrew. 

2s.  A  desire  to  make  the  construction  uniform  may  account 
for  the  omission  of  lute  and  the  suffix  of  infltfn.  The  mis- 


Variants  from  Consonantal  Text.  43 

reading  of  nup,  by  which  the  Peshitta  was  led  astray,  seems  to 
have  caused  the  omission  of  the  third  uppu.  This  verse  is  a  good 
illustration  of  how  the  Septuagint  influenced  the  Peshitta. 

310.  '¥13  nanny.  The  meaning  of  these  words  is  not  clear,  and 
it  is  therefore  more  probable  that  they  were  omitted  by  the 
Septuagintist  than  that  they  were  interpolated  into  the  Hebrew 
subsequent  to  the  time  of  translation.  If  7rpoo-8e'£o/xai  lv  Sieo-Tra/o/Ac- 
vots  fiov,  as  has  already  been  suggested,  was  in  the  original  Septu- 
agint, it  was  later  omitted  under  Syriac  influence. 
may  be  a  corruption  for  Tr/aoo-ei^o/xai  (cf.  Ju.  138).  ev 
fjiov  seems  to  represent  'Jfisp?  (cf.  II  Chr.  1818),  which  agrees 
closely  with  the  reading  that  the  Yulgate  seems  to  suggest  (filii 
dispersorum  meorum — "¥^  \^). 

(4).  In  the  three  passages  that  remain  to  be  considered  the 
Hebrew  is  difficult,  and  help  from  the  versions  would  be  very 
welcome. 

I3,  et  ruinae  impiorum  erunt — V*4-*»'V^  |A««1  ]A^oculo — Kal  do-^cv- 
ricrova-Lv  ol  cure/Jets — D'yenn  n«  m^EODrn.  The  versions  all  agree 
as  to  D"ych  (cf.  Peshitta,  Num.  16ao),  but  each  one  gives  it  a  dif- 
ferent grammatical  government.  They  also  agree  in  regard  to 
the  root  htiD  (cf.  Septuagint,  Ez.  2120),  though  not  in  regard  to  the 
form  of  it  here  to  be  read.  The  n«,  which  is  difficult,  is  not 
represented  in  the  Septuagint  or  Yulgate,  and  the  Peshitta  seems 
to  have  read  it  as  the  first  person  imperfect  of  nnx.  Jerome 
wrote  among  other  things  in  regard  to  these  words,  pro  quo  Sym. 
interpretatus  est,  et  scandala  cum  impiis,  ut  subaudiatur,  con- 
gregabuntur,  sive  deficient'  Quinta  autem  ed.,  et  infirmitas  cum 
impiis  deficiet.  It  would  seem  from  this  quotation  that  Jerome 
knew  of  the  r\K  in  the  text,  and  that  the  Vulgate  translation 
is  supposed  to  do  justice  to  it.  Though  it  is  quite  certain  that 
this  troublesome  word  is  not  represented  in  the  Septuagint,  it  is 
impossible  to  determine  what  the  Greek  does  represent.  Perhaps 
the  first  word  was  read  as  a  perfect  with  vau  conversive;  on  this 
supposition  the  Hebrew  has  sometimes  been  corrected.  The 
witness  of  the  versions  is  contradictory  and  entirely  inconclu- 
sive. 

26.     Eteritfuniculus  maris  requies  pastorum,  et  caulae pecorum 


44  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 


7rot/mW  KCU  /jiavSpa  Trpo/Jarw  —  |l3f  niTUl  D'JH  HID  nu  O'H 
Whether  n^n  or  nrrn  was  read  by  the  translators,  it  is  impossible 
to  determine.  The  Vulgate  has  omitted  mo  and  read  nnj  for 
nu  (requies  is  the  constant  translation  of  nnj).  The  Peshitta  has 
interpreted  the  verse  freely  in  accordance  with  its  reading  of  mD 
(Crete)  adopted  from  the  Septuagint.  DTI  Snn  is  not  represented 
in  the  Septuagint;  the  order  of  nu  and  mj  is  reversed;  mj  is 
read  as  a  proper  name;  irot/mW  translates  D^n  (cf.  214  iroipvui=; 
D'Yiy;  at  vofuu  TO>V  woi/x€va>v=D'jnn  111  JO,  Am.  la,  seems  to  indicate 
that  7rot/AV6o>v  must  be  corrected  to  Troi/xeVwv)  .  Perhaps  the  addi- 
tion of  TT}S  0a\d<ro"r)s  (27)  is  compensatory  for  the  omission  of 
DTI  S^n  (cf.  Peshitta).  The  difficulty  of  the  translators  seems  to 
have  focussed  in  mj,  which  is  a  hapax  legomenon.  This  word 
is  by  many  regarded  as  a  gloss  on  nu  ;  to  others  both  it  and  DTI  ^n 
seem  superfluous.  The  impossibility  of  correcting  the  Hebrew 
by  the  versions  is  patent,  but  Slin  nrrn  is  inexplicable  (the  noun 
is  always  masculine  except  in  this  verse,  cf.  27).  The  wide 
divergence  of  the  versions  from  the  current  Hebrew  and  from 
each  other  becomes  clear  when  the  various  texts  are  placed  side 
by  side  in  translation  : 

(a)  Revised  Version  —  And  the  sea-coast  shall  be  pastures,  with 
cottages  (caves;  others,  wells)  for  shepherds  and  folds  for  flocks. 

(b)  Vulgate  —  And  the  sea-coast  shall  be  a  place  of  rest    (cf. 
Verg.  A.  Ill,  393)  for  shepherds,  and  a  fold  for  sheep: 

(c)  Peshitta  —  And  the  sea-coast  shall  be  a  dwelling  place,  and 
Crete  a  pasture  for  flocks  of  sheep  : 

(d)  Septuagint  —  And  Crete  shall  be  a  pasture  for  flocks,  and  a 
fold  for  cattle. 

28.  siccitas  spinarum  et  acervi  salis  —  r^l®  ,—  *oi-»^£J  &  S  n  tiZ|? 
.^quMn  \Sr—  Aa/Aao-Kos  cKAeAei/AjueV?;  a>?  ^t/xwna  dAds—  fl^D  mDDl  SlIH  pK^DD. 
Jerome  read  p.Eto,  and  acerviis  dependent  on  Olivia  (Siccitas,  quod 
Hebraeice  MAMASAC;  .  .  .  MEM  si  mutetur  et  DALETH 
accipiatur,  easdem  litteras  habet  quas  et  Damascus  ;  .  .  .  0i//,<uviav, 
id  est,  acervum).  The  Peshitta  seems  to  have  read  m^D  (Job 
304),  mallow.  Snn  (Syriac,  IV*;  cf.  Prov.  2431,  Lee,  li-^~)  was 
in  contrast  with  mSn,  which  grows  wild,  interpreted  as  cultivated 
grasses.  n"OD  was  read  as  a  passive  form  of  n"O  and  translated 
as  always  by  r^.  A  parallelism  was  produced  by  giving  the 


Conclusion.  45 

remaining  word  a  corresponding  meaning.  The  relative  and  suf- 
fixes, as  well  as  the  conjunction  and  copula,  of  the  next  verse  are 
interpretative  additions.  The  Syriac  is  thus  to  be  rendered: 
because  their  crop  has  been  destroyed,  and  their  wild  grass  has 
perished.  The  origin  of  Aa/xao-Kos  is  explained  by  Jerome.  e/cAc- 
Xufjt,fj,tvri  shows  that  Sin  was  read  for  Sin.  0i/Awvwx.  shows  that 
n"OD  was  derived  from  jvo  in  a  sense  preserved  in  the  Aramaic 
('"O,  UH>)  and  the  Assyrian  (karu).  oXos  must,  as  has  already  been 
indicated,  be  read  for  dAon/os.  While  witnessing  to  the  orginality 
of  the  current  Hebrew,  the  versions  give  absolutely  no  help  in  its 
interpretation. 


OHAPTEE  VI. 

CONCLUSION. 

Everything  in  the  versions  that  seemed  to  have  a  bearing  on 
the  criticism  of  the  text  has  now  been  presented  with  as  much 
fulness  as  it  seemed  to  warrant.  The  nature  of  the  material  con- 
sidered makes  differences  of  opinion  in  regard  to  its  proper  dis- 
tribution inevitable,  but  the  necessity  for  some  such  scheme  of 
classification  as  has  been  adopted  will  hardly  be  denied.  The 
departures  of  the  Vulgate  from  the  Massoretic  tradition  which 
have  been  noted  have  no  special  merit,  and  of  the  readings  in 
which  it  bears  positive  witness  to  a  difference  between  its 
"Urtext"  and  the  present  Hebrew  not  one  is  worthy  of  con- 
sideration. In  every  case  its  witness  to  the  text  on  which  it  is 
based  (cf.  I14- 2"),  or  the  witness  of  that  text  itself  (cf.  S'^is 
unreliable.  The  Peshitta,  when  it  is  independent  of  the  Septua- 
gint,  disagrees  with  the  Massoretic  tradition  very  infrequently, 
and  the  few  variants  that  it  offers  are  no  more  worthy  of  accept- 
ance than  are  those  of  the  Vulgate.  So  far  as  it  can  be  con- 
trolled, the  testimony  of  these  two  versions  is  in  favor  of  the 
accurate  transmission  of  the  Hebrew  from  the  time  of  their 
origin.  This  conclusion  would  perhaps  need  some  revision,  if 
the  numerous  non  sequiturs  due  to  the  process  of  translation 
could  be  eliminated.  To  possess  the  manuscript  or  manuscripts 
used  by  the  translators  would  therefore  be  of  considerable  advan- 
tage to  Textual  Criticism. 


46  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

If  the  recovery  of  the  sources  of  the  Vulgate  and  the  Peshitta 
is  a  thing  to  be  desired,  the  possession  of  the  source  of  the  Septu- 
agint  is  positively  a  sine  qua  non  for  the  full  understanding  of  the 
history  of  the  Hebrew  text  of  Zephaniah,  for  this  translation  is 
but  a  sorry  equivalent  for  its  original.  It  was  not  made  by  one 
who  had  a  "genius  for  translation",  for  his  general  inaccuracy 
seems  to  have  been  even  greater  than  his  lack  of  knowledge, 
unless  indeed  he  attempted  to  cover  his  ignorance  by  manipulat- 
ing his  text.  Many  of  his  translations  call  vividly  to  mind  the 
hit  or  miss  achievements  of  a  school-boy  whose  pensum  stands 
between  him  and  the  play-ground.  Luther  accused  the  Septua- 
gintists,  as  a  body,  of  "disdaining  to  speak  the  letters,  words 
and  style".  To  show  the  justice  of  this  criticism  as  far  as 
Zephaniah  is  concerned,  one  need  only  to  remove  the  numerous 
faulty  or  wrong  translations  and  interpretations  from  the  Greek 
text;  for  hardly  a  verse  will  then  remain  intact.  A  comparison 
of  the  possible  with  the  impossible  variants  in  the  consonantal 
text  that  it  definitely  supports  shows  that  the  attitude  which 
must  be  maintained  toward  the  Septuagint  of  Zephaniah  is  one  of 
general  distrust.  It  rarely  agrees  with  the  Massoretic  text, 
where  that  text  is  difficult ;  but  the  alternates  which  it  suggests 
are  generally  even  less  acceptable.1  It  cannot  be  appealed  to  as 
an  infallible  authority  on  hapax  legomena,  nor  can  the  Hebrew 
lexicon  be  enriched  by  the  meanings  of  rare  words  that  it  sup- 
ports. Since  the  testimony  of  the  Septuagint  as  to  its  source  is  so 
unreliable,  its  value  for  Textual  Criticism  is  much  less  than  it 
might  be  in  view  of  the  comparative  nearness  of  its  "  Urtext "  to 
the  autograph.  It  is  especially  unfortunate  in  this  case  that  the 
Septuagint  does  not  speak  with  a  more  certain  voice  either  in 
condemnation  or  confirmation  because  of  the  difficulties  which 
the  Hebrew  presents.2  The  only  general  conclusion  warranted 
by  the  facts  is  that  the  Septuagint  offers  no  conclusive  evidence 
that  the  "  Lagardian  archetype"  was  not  the  text  on  which  it 


for  B^IT  (317)  has  gained  wide  acceptance,  and  yet  against  this  possibly 
correct  reading  three  positively  wrong  readings  of  T  or  "|  must  be  balanced  in  this  book. 
(i»,2«,3»). 

2  The  difficulties  in  the  Hebrew  and  in  the  interpretation  of  Zephaniah  are  briefly  pre- 
sented in  Appendix  I. 


Difficulties  in  the  Hebrew  Text.  47 

also  was  based.  As  far  as  the  possibility  of  showing  the  con- 
trary by  external  evidence  goes,  the  present  Hebrew  text  may 
well  be  that  of  the  autograph  of  Zephaniah,1  for  the  few  parallels 
in  thought  and  diction  with  other  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  to 
be  found  in  the  book  are  of  no  critical  value  (I6 — Jer.  82;  1" — 
Jer.  4811;  I13— Am.  5n;  I18— Ez.  7lfl;  28— Is.  16',  Jer.  48ae-48;  214-1&— 
Is.  13,  21-22,  3411,  478-10;  34— Ez.  2228;  310— Is.  I18),  and  the  versions 
offer  not  a  single  reading  which  absolutely  demands  acceptance. 


APPENDIX  I. 

THE    " DIFFICULTIES"   IN   THE   HEBREW   TEXT   OF  ZEPHANIAH. 

The  words  and  phrases  included  in  this  list  have  occasioned  a 
great  deal  of  discussion.  It  may  be  safely  affirmed  that  in  regard 
to  them  nothing  is  certain. 

la  'JDK  ^DK.  The  infinitive  absolute  is  from  a  different  root  than 
the  finite  verb.  (sjDKK,  Wellhausen;  *]?«',  Nowack;  cf.  *  104", 
Mi.  4B). 

I9  r»K.     The  word  stands  between  two  nouns  (r\K  'n^Eon,  Oort). 

I5  D\j?3tfan  D'mntfon.  The  juxtaposition  of  these  two  participles 
is  awkward.  (Some  would  omit  the  former,  while  others  prefer 
to  delete  the  latter).  Ehrlich  (Mikrd  Ki  Pheschuto,  III,  p.  456) 
suggests  that  the  use  of  different  formulas  of  swearing  is  indi- 
cated by  "a  j?3Bfo  and  "h  yzwi ;  the  former  referring  to  the  sn  form, 
the  latter  to  the  ^K  form. 

I9  |r»2D  hy  jSin.  The  Targum  seems  to  connect  the  words  with 
the  custom  of  the  Philistine  worshippers  of  Dagon,  I  Sam.  I6;  cf. 
Trumbull,  The  Threshold  Covenant,  2d  ed.,  p.  117.  Ehrlich  (p. 
457)  translates:  die  in  denVorzimmern  herumscharwenzelen.  He 
thinks  that  sycophants  are  referred  to,  and  that  they  are  com- 
pared to  dogs  leaping  up  and  down  at  the  threshold  of  their 
master. 

I14  nnn.  This  word  must  be  read  as  a  participle  (IHDD,  Well- 
hausen). 


1  The  protests  of  Conjectural  Criticism  and  Higher  Criticism  do  not  properly  fall 
within  the  limits  of  the  present  inquiry,  but  a  few  remarks  which  seem  not  entirely 
uncalled  for  have  been  added  in  Appendix  II. 


48  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

I14  "11:2:1  rm  in  rnrr  or  Sp.  The  grammatical  relation  of  these 
words  to  each  other  and  to  what  precedes  is  obscure.  (The  con- 
jecture of  Gratz  is  rather  heroic,  113:0  niir  nirr  ^p). 

117  DnS.     The  exact  meaning  of  this  word  is  unknown  (cf.   Job 
20"). 

118  nSmj.     nSrVj  is  the  ordinary  form. 

21  iKhpi  itfuhpnn.     The  meaning  of  the  words  is  unknown. 

•pDJ  is  also  uncertain  (the  Aramaic  *|DD  means  turn  pale). 

2a  D1D3  with  an  infinitive  occurs  only  here  (in  Is.  1714  and  28* 
it  is  used  with  a  noun),  and  the  pleonastic  use  of  «S  with  this  con- 
junction is  found  nowhere  else  in  the  Old  Testament. 

28  The  word  ^n  seems  to  be  feminine  in  this  verse ;  in  the  next 
verse  it  is  masculine,  rnj  is  found  only  in  this  verse;  the   usual 
form  is  m*O.       niD  is  a  hapax  legomenon  of  doubtful  meaning 
(Ehrlich,  nyi?). 

27  It  is  not  clear  to  whom  the  suffix  of  orr1?;?  refers  (D^n  hy, 
Wellhausen). 

29  p$DD  and  niDD  are  hapax  legomena,  and  the  meanings  usually 
given  to  the  words  are  conjectural. 

211  The  tense  of  nil  is  difficult  and  its  meaning  is  obscure. 

214  nip  nrw  o  ^DU  nn  p^na  intf*  Sp?  Ehrlich  suggests  that  the 
3  of  3in  is  due  to  dittography,  and  he  translates  the  first  five 
words:  es  pfeift  lustig  zum  Fenster  hinein,  zum  Loch  an  den 
Pfosten. 

31  In  HK1D  the  «  is  hard  to  explain. 

38  1D1J  is  by  many  regarded  as  a  hapax  legomenon  (cf .  Septua- 
gint),  others  take  the  word  as  a  denominative  from  DiJ  (cf.  Nu. 
248,  Ez.  2324). 

34  ni1J3  is  a  hapax  legomenon  as  to  form. 

3*  11V3  is  a  hapax  legomenon. 

37  "U1  Sj  seems  to  hang  in  the  air.  (It  has  been  proposed  to 
read  n^jJD  with  the  Septuagint,  to  change  rn:r  to  ino%  and  to 
take  hy  snip£)  in  the  sense  of  command,  Lagarde.) 

310  'injj  is  a  hapax  legomenon.     '•ysna  ? 

317  "3  a^irv.     A   direct   object   for   the    verb    seems  necessary 
OTO,  cf.  *  217). 

318  There  are  two  roots  to  which  uu  may  be  referred;  of  these 
one  means  to  be  grieved,   the  other,   to  be  removed.     The  two 


Criticism  of  the  Text.  49 

translations  offered  by  the  Revised  Version  illustrate  the  extreme 
obscurity  of  this  verse. 

319  nx-niyy  is  unusual  (Gratz  suggests  that  n^D  be  added,  cf. 


The  grammatical  governments  of  unwi  is  not  clear  (Noldeke 
proposed  to  delete  the  final  D  of  D'nDfr  and  to  take  Dntfa  as  its 
object. 


APPENDIX   II. 

THE  CONJECTURAL  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM  AND  HIGHER    CRITICISM 
OF  THE  TEXT  OF  ZEPHANIAH. 

§  I.  No  one  can  say  what  may  or  may  not  happen  to  a  text 
transmitted  in  manuscript,  and  therefore  not  even  the  wildest 
conjecture  can  be  dismissed  as  impossible;  but  it  is  equally  true, 
even  though  the  contrary  seems  to  be  implied  in  the  confident 
assertions  of  some,  that  the  fact  that  Zephaniah  may  have  expressed 
a  thought  in  a  certain  form  or  written  a  sentence  in  a  certain 
way  does  not  actually  prove  that  he  did  so  write  or  express  it. 
The  relative  plausibility  of  the  readings  which  it  has  been  pro- 
posed to  substitute  for  those  in  the  current  Hebrew  can  be  more 
or  less  accurately  gauged.  In  Appendix  I  the  conjectures  that 
have  something  positive  to  recommend  them  have  already  been 
noted.  A  free  reconstruction  of  the  text  obtained  by  raising 
poetical  measure1  or  the  demands  of  a  fantastic  theory3  into  a 
canon  of  Textual  Criticism  has  hardly  more  validity  than  have 
the  results  of  an  entirely  arbitrary  change,  transposition  and 
recombination  of  letters.3  The  changes  which  show  only  what 


1  Much  study  has  been  devoted  to  Hebrew  poetry  in  the  last  two  decades.  Miiller 
(Die  Propheten  in  Hirer  ursprunglichen  Form;  Strophenbau  und  Responsion), 
Konig  (Stilistik,  Rhetorik,  Poetik)  and  Sievers  (Studien  zur  Hebraischen  Metrik) 
have  contributed  largely  to  the  recent  popularity  of  this  subject.  The  latest  attempt  to 
recast  Zephaniah  in  poetical  form  was  contributed  by  Fagnani  to  the  Harper  Memo- 
rial Volumes  (1908). 

a  Cheyne  (Critica  JBiblia,  in  loc.)  has  changed  2*  to  read:    D'BO  HIIT1? 
DTJp  I1?  Uni.     He  has   the  following  note  in  support  of  one  of  his  changes: 
is  required  as  a  parallel  to  lS  though  represented  only  by  }  in  IBhpl. 

'  Bachmann(^wr  Textkritik  des  Propheten  Zephanja,  S.K  ;  1894)  has  emended 
to  read  :  m^D  ....  HD33  vh  'UH- 


50  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

the  critic  thinks  Zephaniah  ought  to  have  said  can  with  safety  be 
dismissed  from  serious  consideration.1 

§  II.  This  free  Conjectual  Criticism  of  the  text  gives  much 
support  to  and  gains  much  help  from  the  Higher  Criticism,  which 
dissects  an  ancient  document  according  to  subjective  standards 
of  style  and  thought-cogency.  The  integrity  of  Zephaniah 
has  often  been  denied.  The  following  summary  condensed  from 
the  article  Zephaniah  by  J.  A.  Selbie  in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of 
the  J3ible  needs  very  little  comment.2  Keunen  was  inclined  to 
regard  31*-90  as  post-exilic  on  account  of  differences  both  in  tone 
and  situation  from  the  rest  of  the  prophecy.  Stade  denied  to 
Zephaniah  21-8-11  and  the  whole  of  chapter  3.  Wellhausen  (com- 
pare Nowack)  suspected  22-3,  rejected  28"11  and  treated  chapter  3 
as  a  later  supplement  added  in  two  stages  (1-7  and  8-20).  Budde 
(followed  by  Cornill,  Einleitung,  3d  edition)  admitted  21'1, 
31"6'7'8'6'11"18  as  in  harmony  with  Zephaniah's  situation;  he  rejected 
24"16  mainly  because  Israel  appears  as  the  victim,  not  as  the  per- 
petrator of  wrong ;  he  excluded  39'10  as  breaking  the  connection 
between  3"  and  3" ;  he  declared  314"ao  to  be  a  later  lyrical  epilogue. 
Schwally  allowed  to  Zephaniah  chapter  1,  213'16  and  perhaps  21'4, 
holding  26"1*  to  be  exilic  and  chapter  3  post-exilic,  though  3'"T 
may  be  Zephaniah's.  G.  A.  Smith  denied  to  Zephaniah  28"11, 
39'10  and  314"30.  Driver  remarked  that  211  seemed  to  be  somewhat 
out  of  place  and  that  314"20  is  somewhat  doubtful,  though  the 
'  question  remains  whether  it  is  sufficiently  clear  that  the  imagina- 
tive picture  was  beyond  the  power  of  Zephaniah  to  construct.' 
Davidson  defended  the  genuineness  of  chapter  2  as  a  whole,  but 
considered  it  quite  possible  that  it  had  been  expanded  in  various 
places;  he  allowed  that  310  should  possibly  be  omitted,  but  other- 
wise 31"13  appeared  to  him  to  be  genuine,  although  they  might 
suggest  that  the  passage  was  later  than  chapter  1 ;  in  314"20  he 
recognized  quite  a  different  situation  from  the  rest  of  the  book. 
Konig  would  apparently  accept  the  whole  of  the  book  except  the 
title  which  refers  the  prophecy  to  the  days  of  Josiah. 

This  paragraph  is  an  unintended,  though  on  that  account  no 
less  positive,  refutation  of  the  method  by  which  such  conflicting 


1  D^TJ?  for  Dmy  and  v^OY  for  •niBP  (2' 4)  are  of  this  kind. 

2  The  article  Zephaniah  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Bibllca  contains  a  similar  summary  by 
Driver. 


Criticism  of  the  Text.  51 

results  are  achieved.  One  can  hardly  repress  the  thought  that  a 
great  deal  of  these  "  assured  results"  is  due  to  the  endeavor  of 
each  latest  critic  to  justify  his  rediscussion  of  the  subject  by 
presenting  something  different  from  that  which  his  predecessors 
have  said.  It  would  seem  from  this  paragraph  that  the  book  in 
its  present  form  is  but  a  sorry  piece  of  patchwork ;  and  yet  the 
writer  of  the  article  Zephaniah  in  Smithes  Dictionary  of  the  Bible 
expressed  the  opinion  that  "the  chief  characteristics  of  this  book 
are  the  unity  and  harmony  of  the  composition,  the  grace,  energy 
and  dignity  of  its  style,  and  the  rapid  and  effective  alternations 
of  threats  and  promises."  The  critics  themselves  being  wit- 
nesses, there  is  not  a  single  verse  which  Zephaniah  could  not 
have  written,  and  therefore  one  who  is  not  anxious  to  father  any- 
thing new  can  defend  the  integrity  of  the  book  by  choosing  his 
"authorities"  with  discrimination.  The  writer  is  free  to  con- 
fess that  he  is  interested  in  the  whole  text,  which  may  be  Zepha- 
niah's  Zephaniah,  rather  than  in  that  part  of  it  which  in  the 
opinion  of  each  critic  a  Zephaniah,  who  was  on  the  plane  of 
religious  evolution  which  he  thinks  his  age  had  attained,  who 
possessed  the  mentality  with  which  he  is  pleased  to  endow  him,  and 
who  wrote  as  he  himself  would  have  written  under  similar  cir- 
cumstances, could  or  ought  to  have  produced.  The  arguments 
and  counter-arguments  advanced  for  and  against  the  genuineness 
of  the  many  verses  discussed  are  all  singularly  pointless  and  are 
invalid  to  overthrow  the  presumption  established  in  favor  of  the 
integrity  of  the  book  by  the  mere  fact  that  some  one  gave  it  its 
present  form ;  for  to  that  man's  mind  the  book  was  a  unit  and 
the  ease  with  which  critics  brush  aside  the  arguments  of  critics 
demonstrates  that  an  unbiased  Higher  Criticism  can  not  show 
that  the  man  in  question  was  not  the  Zephaniah  to  whom  the 
book  has  so  long  been  attributed.  Arguments  based  on  the  style 
of  a  writer  known  only  through  his  works  are  notably  precarious, 
even  though  he  has  left  extensive  literary  remains.  The  psycho- 
logical law  of  the  Association  of  Ideas  utterly  condemns  all 
argumentation  based  on  thought  development  alone,  for  it  shows 
that  no  combination  or  contrast  of  ideas — even  abrupt  change  from 
threat  to  promise — is  impossible.  Zephaniah  has  left  at  most 
fifty-three  verses ;  it  is  surely  absurd  to  build  up  one's  conception 


52  The  Text  of  Zephaniah. 

of  the  man  out  of  the  first  eighteen  that  are  assumed  to  be  his, 
and  to  use  the  conception  of  his  style  and  capacities  thus  gained 
as  a  standard  to  determine  which  of  the  remaining  verses  he 
could  and  which  he  could  not  have  written.  Judged  by  present 
standards,  strong  arguments  can  be  advanced  to  show  that  3''5b 
originally  stood  between  the  two  halves  of  I13: 

(a).  In  the  present  text  it  is  difficult  to  determine  where  the 
arraignment  of  Nineveh  ends  and  that  of  Jerusalem  begins.  The 
Peshitta  has  actually  referred  31  to  Nineveh,  and  the  present 
chapter  division  of  the  Septuagint  shows  that  215  was  referred  to 
Jerusalem  by  its  author. 

(b).  The  nexus  between  the  second  and  third  clauses  of  36  does 
not  seem  to  be  very  close,  but  3Bc  in  that  it  would  emphasize  the 
absolute  hopelessness  of  Nineveh's  condition  would  be  an  admir- 
able conclusion  to  215. 

(c).  31  continues  in  the  style  of  I11  and  32"5b  contain  the  full 
charge  on  which  the  punishment  threatened  in  I12b  is  based. 

The  ipsi  dixerunt  of  the  critics  have  no  greater  objective 
validity  than  those  for  this  transposition  have.  A  detailed  dis- 
cussion of  all  the  points  involved  in  this  seemingly  endless  dis- 
cussion would  lead  far  into  the  theory  of  Israel's  religious 
development,  whose  exigencies  seem  to  demand  such  excisions 
(23-11,  38"11)  as  are  not  based  on  purely  subjective  considerations, 
and  therefore  the  reader  who  seeks  for  arguments  of  this  kind  to 
support  his  belief  in  the  integrity  of  the  book  must  be  left  to 
find  them  in  the  works  of  such  champions  as  each  verse  or  verse- 
group  has  found.1 


i  The  present  tendency  to  find  wholesale  interpolations  in  the  Prophets  has  been  dis- 
cussed by  Vos  (The  Eighth  Century  Prophets,  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review, 
1898). 


x  VITA. 

The  writer  was  born  in  Meedhuizen,  Province  of  Groningen,  Holland,  Janu- 
ary 25,  1883.  He  received  his  primary  education  in  the  Public  Schools  of 
Chicago,  111.,  and  was  graduated  from  Hope  College,  Holland,  Mich.,  with 
the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts  in  1903.  He  attended  the  sessions  of  the 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  during  the  years  1903-1907,  receiving  the 
Degree  of  Bachelor  of  Divinity  in  1907.  He  was  the  Newberry  Scholar  of  the 
Board  of  Education  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  from  1904  to  1907.  From 
1907  to  1909  he  was  a  student  in  Columbia  University,  one  year  as  a  Fellow 
in  Semitic  languages.  While  in  Columbia  University  he  attended  Old  Testa- 
ment lectures  in  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York.